jD^ 


rk  35E.T 

C97cl 


Ui  I "n 


1854. 


NOTICE:  Return  or  renew  all  Library  Materials!  The  Minimum  Fee  for 
each  Lost  Book  is  $50.00. 

The  person  charging  this  material  is  responsible  for 
its  return  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  withdrawn 
on  or  before  the  Latest  Date  stamped  below. 

Theft,  mutilation,  and  underlining  of  books  are  reasons  for  discipli- 
nary action  and  may  result  in  dismissal  from  the  University. 

To  renew  call  Telephone  Center,  333-8400 


* 

<N 


ARGUMENT 


Y' 


MR.  CUTLER. 


Me.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee: 


£Jl 


The  question  upon  which  you  are  deliberating  is  of  such 
magnitude,  that  it  relieves  me  from  the  apology  I should 
otherwise  feel  to  be  your  due,  for  taking  up  ajay  more  of 
your  time,  in  an  attempt  to  speak  upon  a topic  already  illus- 
trated by  the  eloquence  of  my  learned  associate.  But  I do 
not  propose  to  repeat  anything  which  has  been  so  well  said 
by  him. 

You  must  pardon  me  for  directing  your  attention  for  a 
moment,  at  the  outset  of  my  remarks,  to  an  expression  of  the 
learned  counsel  of  Mr.  Boorman.  He  tendered  me  a happy 
compliment,  for  which  I should  have  felt  all  the  more  grate- 
ful, if  I were  quite  sure  that  it  was  designed  to  secure  me  a 
more  favorable  consideration  from  your  committee.  In  ad- 
dition to  the  compliment,  he  was  pleased  to  allude  to  my  re- 
mark, that  I appeared  for  those  who  had  a higher  interest  in 
opposing  the  opening  of  this  street  than  that  represented  by 
mere  property ; and  then  he  said  that  he  did  not  know  what 
that  “ higher  interest ” was  ; but  supposed  it  to  be  somewhat 
akin  to  the  “ higher  law 


1 


2 


Let  ns  for  a moment,  then,  examine  the  question,  whether 
there  be  any  higher  interest  than  that  of  property  ? Is  the 
learned  counsel  furnishing  us  with  a sound  principle  of  legis- 
lation, or  an  exalted  rule  of  patriotic  action,  when  he  thus 
ignores  the  existence  of  any  “ higher  interest ” than  that  of 
mere  money-producing  property  ? I had  always  supposed 
that  the  “ rights  of  person”  were  of  more  appreciation  in  the 
light  of  the  law,  of  reason  and  of  patriotism  than  the  mere 
“ right  of  property.”  The  u right  of  personal  liberty” — the  right 
to  the  free  enjoyment  of  life  while  we  live — and  certainly 
no  less  the  right  to  the  narrow  house  to  which  the  hands  of 
affection  consign  us  when  we  die,  involve  a “ higher  interest” 
than  that  of  property.  ,If  it  be  not  so,  then  was  our  Ee volu- 
tion a vain  expenditure  of  blood  and  of  treasure.  Our  fore- 
fathers fought  for  liberty' — that  religious  liberty  which  they 
were  denied  in  the  old  world,  and  which  they  sought  in  the 
forests  of  the  new ; liberty  of  conscience,  liberty  of  speech, 
freedom  of  the  press,  and  the  right  to  enjoy  their  own  do- 
mestic hearth-stones  free  from  molestation : and  these 
liberties  they  fondly  believed  they  had  secured.  They 
. sought,  in  a word,  that  freedom  from  oppression  and  those 
liberties  which  secured  them  the  unmolested  enjoyment  of 
the  inalienable  rights  of  man — “ life , liberty  and  the  pursuit 
of  happiness :”  these  were  the  liberties  which  our  forefathers 
sought,  and  for  these  liberties,  and  to  preserve  them  as  an 
invaluable  treasure  for  their  posterity,  the  battles  of  the  Eevo- 
lution  were  fought.  And  shall  it  be  said,  in  these  degenerate 
times,  that  “ there  is  no  higher  interest  than  that  of  property? 

I confess,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I believe  that  they  who 
cherish  the  memory  and  desire  to  preserve  the  remains  of 
the  men  who  fought  for  the  triumph  of  liberty  over  despot- 
ism, and  who  venerate  whatever  may  be  regarded  as  a me- 
mento of  that  triumph,  have  a “ higher  interest”  than  that  of 
property  in  this  question.  If,  however,  the  preservation  of 
property  be  the  highest  interest  which  we  acknowledge,  let 
it  be  publicly  proclaimed,  that  in  the  greatest  republic  of 
modern  times,  personal  liberty  is  discarded — that  we  have  a 
Venitian  oligarchy  ; and  that  the  idea  of  property  is  alone 


3 


regarded.  And  let  it  be  proclaimed,  too,  that,  to  determine 
the  precise  value  of  our  patriots  and  the  quantum  of  vene- 
ration due  to  their  memory,  we  employ  learned  men  to  make 
such  a chemical  analysis  of  their  remains,  as  the  argument 
here  would  necessarily  suggest,  and  that  we  measure  out  our 
gratitude  in  a precise  mathematical  ratio  to  the  quantum  of 
bones  which  are  found ; and,  when  the  horror-stricken  au- 
dience shall  sicken  at  the  recital,  let  some  republican  arise 
and  attempt  to  prove  that  republics  are  grateful ; or  rather 
let  the  proud  minion  of  monarchy  proclaim  the  fact  as  a new 
instance  of  the  ingratitude — the  alleged  proverbial  ingrati- 
tude of  republics. 

There  is  one  other  observation  which  I desire  to 
make.  The  course  this  discussion  has  taken,  forces  it 
irresistibly  upon  my  mind.  There  is,  Mr.  Chairman,  a 
wide,  very  wide  difference  between  solemn  argument,  and 
ridicule,  witicism,  and  sarcasm.  Is  ridicule  argument? 
How  much  logic  is  there  in  a sneer  ? Everything  holy  may 
be  turned  to  ridicule.  The  infidels  of  France,  in  the  eigh- 
teenth century, •.  ridiculed  the  doctrines  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion. Voltaire  uttered  the  most  biting  satire  on  the  truths 
of  the  Bible  ; and  yet  his  sneers  have  not  induced  us  to  turn 
infidels,  nor  have  we  been  disposed  to  believe  that  they 
proved  our  Bible  false,  or  our  religion  unfounded.  Believe 
me,  sir,  that  the  holy  sentiment  of  respect  for  the  dead  is  too 
well  founded  and  too  earnestly  entertained  by  this  com- 
munity to  be  eradicated  by  a flippant  jest.  And  I am  glad 
to  be  able  to  assure  you,  that  if  the  learned  counsel  for  Mr. 
Boorman  has  indulged  in  any  expressions  which  could  be 
construed  by  any  one  into  disrespect  for  the  memory  of  the 
departed,  or  for  the  feelings  of  their  surviving  friends,  he 
must  have  been  betrayed  into  them  by  his  zeal  for  his  client ; 
for  I can  vouch  for  it,  that  he  himself  entertains  a profound 
reverence  for  the  dead.  Not  to  do  so,  would  be  to  prove 
false  to  his  lineage — false  to  the  generous  impulses  of  his 
heart — false  to  all  those  noble  sentiments  by  which  I know 
he  means  to  be  guided. 

Listen,  for  a moment,  to  the  voice  of  his  departed  brother 


4 


— a brother  eminent  at  the  bar,  exalted  upon  the  bench,  and 
one  whose  every-day  life  was  an  illustration  of  the  truths  of 
the  Christian  religion : and  while  I read  his  sentiments,  as 
expressed  in  this  book,  believe  me,  sir,  that  I read  the  senti- 
ments of  the  learned  counsel  himself — sentiments  which  he 
would  freely  express  in  social  life,  and  which  nothing  but  his 
position  as  Counsel  could  lead  him  even  to  seem  to  doubt. 
That  brother  said,  in  the  case  of  Windt  v.  The  German  Re- 
formed Church , (4  Sandford’s  Chancery  Reports,  476:) 

“ It  is  painful  and  deeply  dbhorent  to  the  sensibilities  of  our 
nature  to  have  the  remains  of  our  beloved  friends  and  relatives 
disturbed  in  their  last  homes , and  removed  by  rude  and  careless 
hands  to  a distant  cemetery,  not  hallowed  by  any  of  the  associations 
which  encircle  the  consecrated  ground  where  we  have  deposited 
them , in  sadness  and  in  sorrow.  I confess  that  I have  not  be- 
come so  much  of  a philosopher  as  to  regard  the  bodies  of 
deceased  friends  as  nothing  more  nor  better  than  the  clods 
of  the  valley : and  that  my  sympathies  were  strongly  enlisted 
in  behalf  of  these  complainants  vindicating  the  repose  of  the  . 
bones  of  their  kindred.” 

These  are  the  noble  sentiments  to  which  every  heart  in 
this  assembly  responds,  and  none  more  cordially,  I am  sure, 
than  that  of  my  learned  opponent.  As  an  advocate,  he  may 
be  earnest  in  the  defence  of  his  client ; but,  believe  me,  sir, 
as  a man,  for  I know  him  well,  you  cannot  find  one  impell- 
ed by  more  generous  sentiments. 

Perhaps  nothing  more  need  be  said  by  me,  by  way  of  re- 
ply to  what  has  dropped  from  the  learned  counsel.  He  has 
made  a great  many  remarks,  foreign  to  the  discussion  before 
your  committee,  to  which  no  reply  is  demanded ; such,  for 
instance,  as  that  one  of  the  assistant  rectors  of  Trinity 
Church,  at  the  commencement  of  the  Revolutionary  war, 
and  only  three  months  and  twenty-seven  days  after  the  De- 
claration of  Independence,  was  opposed  to  Washington. 
The  letter  of  this  assistant  rector,  to  which  the  counsel  re- 
ferred, was  written  one  month  and  seven  days  after  Trinity 
Church  was  burnt,  and  it  was  not  rebuilt  until  after  the  close 
of  the  war. 


5 


The  church  was  burnt  on  the  twenty-first  of  September, 
1776,  and  of  course  no  services  were  performed  there  after 
that  time  by  the  Rev’d.  Mr.  Inglis,  and  it  is  difficult  to  per- 
ceive how  he  could  in  any  manner  have  exerted  an  influence 
over  its  affairs.  The  learned  counsel  might  as  well  now  at- 
tempt to  prove  that  Washington,  himself,  only  a few  months 
before,  was  a kings-man  and  zealously  supported  the  crown — 
and  from  thence  infer  that  he  never  commanded  the  Revo- 
lutionary forces.  If  the  counsel,  in  the  course  of  his  re- 
searches, had  looked  into  the  4th  volume  of  the  Document- 
ary History,  (p.  1077,)  he  would  have  discovered  that,  at 
the  earliest  practicable  moment,  the  church  was  placed  in 
the  hands  of  a Whig  vestry.  But  it  is  objected  that  this  is 
a Tory  church.  It  is  a grave  argument,  put  forward  with 
all  earnestness,  that  the  street  should  be  opened,  because, 
says  the  counsel,  the  political  sentiments  of  the  church  were 
adverse  to  those  of  Washington.  Although  I am  unable  to 
perceive  the  logical  sequence  of  the  argument,  let  us  for  a 
moment  pause  to  examine  the  fact.  I cannot  find  that 
Trinity  Church  was  in  any  other  sense  a Tory  church  than 
was  every  other  church,  in  the  city  of  New  York,  during 
the  war  of  the  Revolution.  The  Presbyterian  Church, 
Dutch  Church,  Methodist  Church,  Baptist  Church,  were 
each  and  every  of  them,  just  as  much  Tory  churches,  for 
aught  that  I can  see  in  the  page  of  history,  as  was  Trinity. 
When  the  city  was  occupied  by  the.  British,  all  the  churches 
were,  very  probably,  under  the  control  of  the  royalists  who 
remained  in  the  city,  and  it  is  fair  to  presume  that  a large 
portion  of  the  inhabitants,  who  remained  in  the  city  after 
it  had  been  evacuated  by  the  American  troops,  in  1776,  and 
had  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the  British,  were  adherents  to 
the  crown. 

It  was  a time  of  civil  war.  The  contest  raged  fiercely. 
Families  were  divided;  churches  were  divided;  brother 
fought  against  brother,  father  against  son  ; and  the  divisions 
on  questions  of  politics  depended  in  no  respect,  that  I can 
perceive,  upon  the  phase  of  sect. 

I find  among  the  names  of  the  vestry,  from  1772  to  1777, 


6 


that  of  the  Honorable  James  Duane," and  he  was  a warden 
from  1784  to  1794.  Mr.  Duane  was  a member  of  our  Con- 
tinental Congress,  and  a consistent  adherent  to  the  cause  of 
America.  Robert  R.  Livingston,  an  undoubted  Whig,  was 
a vestryman  from  1764  to  1775,  and  a warden  from  1784 
to  1785.  Mr.  James  Desbrosses  was  a vestryman  from  1774 
to  1779,  and  a warden  from  1779  to  1784.  Peter  Yan 
Schaick,  LL.  D.,  an  eminent  lawyer  and  accomplished 
scholar,  was  a vestryman  from  1776  to  1779;  and  in  1780. 
William  Laight  was  a vestryman  from  1777  to  1784,  and 
from  1788  to  1802.  Robert  Watts  from  1778  to  1785,  and 
a warden  in  1783,  and  from  1790  to  1804.  Richard  Har- 
rison was  a vestryman  in  1783.  He  was  recorder  of  the 
city  from  1797  to  1801 : was  a fine  classical  scholar,  and 
was  appointed  by  Washington  to  the  office  of  District  At- 
torney of  the  United  States.  Richard  Morris  was  a vestry- 
man from  1784  to  1785.  He  was  Chief  Justice  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  New-York  in  1779;  and,  of  course,  a 
staunch  Whig.  Francis  Lewis  was  a vestryman  from  1784 
to  1786,  and  no  one  can  forget  that  he  was  one  of  the  signers 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  What  then  becomes 
of  the  objection  that  this  was  peculiarly  a Tory  church.  That 
there  were  Tories  in  the  church,  I frankly  admit ; that  there 
were  Tories  in  all  the  churches  in  the  City  of  New-York,  my 
learned  friend  would  be  compelled  to  admit,  if  indeed  he 
admitted  anything ; but  where  is  the  evidence  that  Trinity 
was  peculiarly  the  Tory  Church  in  the  City  of  New-York,  or 
any  more  inclined  to  Toryism  than  the  Dutch  Church  for 
example,  or  any  other  church  in  the  city,  during  its  occu- 
pation by  the  British  ? 

Mr.  Boorman,  however,  objects  that  it  was  “ a formerly 
regal  hierarchy.”  What  an  argument  in  favor  of  opening 
the  street ! Is  it  true  ? Yes : in  the  same  sense  in  which  it 
may  be  said  that  the  Dutch  Church  was  a formerly  regal 
hierarchy.  In  1774,  every  church  in  New-York  was  under 
the  protection  of  the  Crown  of  Great  Britain  ; and,  if  that  be 
an  argument  against  them,  then  tear  down  the  churches, 
and  declare  a general  proscription  of  Christianity : for  if  the 


7 


argument  means  anything,  it  is  as  good  against  the  obser- 
vances of  religion  generally,  as  it  is  for  the  purpose  for 
which  it  is  invoked. 

But  this  is  trifling  with  the  great  topic  before  you. 
Whether  Whig  or  Tory  were  in  the  church  during  the  Be  vo- 
lution is  a matter  which  has  no  relevancy  to  the  present 
question.  We  need  have  nothing  now  to  do  with  the 
church;  and  an  argument  directed  against  it  necessarily 
raises  a collateral  issue  which  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
People’s  Burying  Ground,  as  this  has  emphatically  always 
been,  and  in  which  no  power  could  prevent  or  ever  did 
prevent  the  interment  of  the  people’s  friends.  It  is  the  poor 
man’s  final  resting-place  which  you  are  now  besought  to 
desecrate.  They  ask  you  to  exhume  the  remains  of  the 
poor  of  two  centuries.  Arguments  addressed  against  the 
Custodians  of  the  cemetery  have  in  fact  nothiug  to  do  with 
the  question.  The  inference  which  the  learned  counsel 
hangs  upon  the  fact  that  the  Assistant  Bector  was  opposed 
to  the  war  when  the  Bevolution  broke  out,  is  an  inference 
far-fetched,  and  positively  refuted  by  reliable  testimony.  If, 
indeed,  the  church  had  been  in  possession  of  this  Assistant 
Bector,  it  would  furnish  strong  confirmatory  evidence  that 
the  British  did  inter  the  bodies  of  the  deceased  patriots 
there.  They  were  the  prisoners  of  the  British,  and  they 
died  in  the  sugar-houses  near  the  grave-yard.  In  short,  it 
was  the  very  place  of  all  others  where  they  would  be  buried 
if  either  British  or  Americans  had  charge  of  their  interment, 
and  the  place  where  many  concurring  sources  of  evidence 
prove  they  were  in  fact  interred.  Of  course  the  American 
prisoners  were  buried  by  their  British  captors,  and  it  is  most 
natural  to  suppose  that  they  buried  them  in  the  City  Bury- 
ing Ground ; especially  when  that  ground  was  nearest  the 
place  of  their  captivity  and  death.  J.  Barnitz  Bacon,*  the 
sexton,  and  the  Hon.  F.  B.  Tillou,  your  recorder,  a man 
whose  name  is  alone  a sufficient  guaranty  for  the  truth  of 
any  statement  he  may  make;  and  the  affidavit  of  General 

* See  petition  A at  the  end  of  the  argument,  p.  30. 


8 


Haight,  the  commander-in-chief  of  the  Veterans  of  the 
second  war  of  Independence,  show  that  some,  at  least,  of  the 
faithful  soldiers  of  the  Kevolution  lie  interred  in  the  line  of 
the  proposed  street.*  The  same  thing  is  repeated  in  the 
report  of  a Committee  of  your  Board  in  March,  1847.f 
It  is  stated  in  the  life  of  General  Lamb  that  he  was  buried  in 
Trinity  Church-yard,  and  I am  iu formed,  by  Mr.  Bleecker, 
that  he  was  buried  on  the  north  side  of  the  church.  See 
Leakes  admirable  life  of  General  Lamb,  page  356,  where  it 
is  stated  that, — 

“ General  Lamb  had  been  Vice-President  of  the  Cincin- 
nati ; once  while  Baron  Steuben  was  President ; and  after- 
wards under  George  Clinton.  He  was  borne  to  the  grave  in 
Trinity  Church-yard , followed  by  the  members  of  that  so- 
ciety. He  was  buried  with  the  military  honors  which  he 
had  so  well  deserved.  And  the  long  array  of  citizens,  as 
they  attended  him  to  the  tomb,  attested  the  respect  which 
his  virtues,  his  bravery,  and  worth  had  universally  com- 
manded.” 

Tlic  iollowing  obituary  notice,  ascribed  at  the  time  to  the 
pen  of  Dr.  Peter  Irving,  is  extracted  from  Denniston’s  paper : 

“ How  sleep  the  brave  who  sink  to  rest ; 

With  all  their  country’s  wishes  blest.” 

“ On  Saturday  morning  departed  for  a better  world,  our 
much  respected  fellow-citizen,  General  John  Lamb  ; who,  to 
the  unbending  honor  and  martial  spirit  of  a soldier — to  the 
unshaken  integrity  of  a real  patriot,  added  the  humane  and 
benevolent  virtues  of  a philanthropist. 

“ He  distinguished  himself  throughout  our  revolutionary 
struggle.  He  lost  an  eye  at  Quebec,  where  the  gallant  but 
ill-fated  Montgomery  fell  ! He  was,  otherwise  severely 
wounded  ; was  captured  and  suffered  the  hardships  of  im- 
prisonment in  assisting  the  cause  of  freedom  and  his  country. 

“ General  Lamb  has  from  early  manhood  trod  the  rugged 

* See  note  B at  the  end  of  the  argument,  p.  31. 

f See  note  C at  the  end  of  the  argument,  p.  33. 


9 


paths  of  life  in  public  view ; and  though  fortune  has  not 
smoothed  his  descent  into  the  vale  of  years,  nor  scattered 
roses  in  his  path ; yet  he  has  ever  preserved  a purity  of 
character,  which  even  the  breath  of  detraction  has  not  dared 
to  sully. 

“Peace  be  to  his  ashes ! He  is  gone  into  the  presence  of 
that  Being  who  will  reward  his  virtues.  The  blessings  of 
misfortune’s  children  waft  his  spirit  onward,  while  the  tears 
of  the  veteran  patriots  who  fought  and  conquered  by  his 
side,  embalm  his  memory.” 

“Peace  be  to  his  ashes /”  said  the  voice  of  his  surviving 
friend  as  the  remains  of  General  Lamb  were  committed  to 
what  that  friend  fondly  supposed  was  their  final  resting- 
place.  But  those  who  desire  to  open  Albany  Street  de- 
clare that  there  is  no  final  resting-place,  no  “ peace  to  the 
ashes  ” of  the  patriot  dead.  “ He  was  buried  with  the  mili- 
tary honors  he  had  so  well  deserved ,”  says  the  biographer. 
How  strangely  would  it  have  sounded  in  the  ears  of  “ the 
long  array  of  citizens  ” who  gathered  round  his  tomb,  if  some 
prophetic  voice  had  declared  that  those  “ military  honors  ” 
should  not  avail  to  protect  his  bones  from  exhumation. 

I have  referred  to  the  biography  of  General  Lamb  merely 
to  prove  that  officers  of  the  Revolution  have  been  buried  in 
Trinity  Church-yard:  that  many  such  were  buried  there 
during  the  war  is  proved  by  tradition,  as  well  as  the  other 
evidence  before  your  committee ; and  a tradition  so  gene- 
rally believed  in  by  the  people  would  of  itself  be  sufficient 
to  establish  any  historical  fact.  But  if  it  were  admitted 
that  no  such  officers  or  soldiers  were  interred  there  during 
the  war,  it  is  beyond  all  controversy  that  many  such  were 
buried  there  after  the  close  of  the  struggle.  This  is  not  de- 
nied, and  is  undeniable. 

But  the  counsel  suggests  that  there  is  no  tombstone  bear- 
ing an  inscription  showing  that  the  remains  of  Revolutionary 
soldiers  were  interred  there. 

Where  is  the  tombstone  of  the  poor  soldier  ? Where  is 
the  marble  slab  that  marks  the  last  resting-place  of  Sir  John 
Moore?  Who  is  there  living  that  can  point  out  the  place 

2 


10 


where  Leonidas  and  the  Spartan  band  who  fell  at  Thermopylae 
were  sepultured.  What  living  witness  can  state  that  he  saw 
the  battle  of  Pharsalia,  and  can  designate  the  tombs  of  the 
Roman  Republican  soldiers  who  fell  there?  By  the  same 
course  of  argument  which  the  counsel  pursued,  it  might  be 
proved  that  the  great  battles  of  antiquity  were  never  fought. 
It  would  be  difficult  to  prove,  by  such  a standard  of  evi- 
dence, that  George  Washington  ever  lived;  that  the  artil- 
lery of  the  Revolution  itself  ever  flashed  upon  the  midnight 
of  despotism,  and  harbingered  the  dawn  of  liberty;  that 
Waterloo  ever  trembled  beneath  the  tread  of  British  legions, 
or  resounded  with  the  thunder  of  Napoleon's  cannon.  In- 
deed, the  argument  would  go  much  further,  and  prove  the 
non-existence  of  everything  but  the  present.  All  the  re- 
cords of  the  past  are  but  traditions  : history  itself  is  but  writ- 
ten tradition — and  shall  we  therefore  deny  its  teachings? 
The  unepitaphed  heroes  of  the  Revolution,  slaughtered  by  a 
ruthless  enemy,  buried  in  dishonor,  will  live  forever  in  the 
hearts  of  their  countrymen : — and  the  fact  that  no  marble, 
with  its  storied  inscriptions,  marks  their  final  resting-place ; 
that,  no  pillar  rough  with  sculpture  points  out  the  spot  where 
the  old  veterans’  deathless  acts  were  displayed,  is  a cogent 
argument  against  disturbing  their  remains — remains  which 
consecrate  every  inch  of  ground  where  they  lie  interred.  No 
power  on  earth  can  divest  that  ground  of  the  hallowed  asso- 
ciations with  which  it  is  embalmed  in  the  hearts  of  the  people. 

' But  it  is  objected  that  this  is  an  avaricious  corporation.  I 
deny  it,  sir.  The  benefactions  of  this  Church  have  been  almost 
unbounded.  They  have  contributed  towards  the  spread  of 
the  Gospel  not  only,  but  towards  almost  every  object  em- 
braced within  the  term,  city  improvement.  They  have  given 
to  the  city — -freely  given , lands  for  streets , piers,  markets , ferries , 
colleges , and  churches.  (Yide  Dr.  Berrien’s  History  of  Trinity 
Church,  367-8 — 370  to  386.)  In  1771  they  contributed 
towards  building  a market  on  Hudson  river.  In  1775,  they 
appropriated  two  lots  on  the  north  side  of  Yesey  street,  for 
a pier  and  slip.  In  1765,  two  lots  were  given  to  the  city  to 
establish  a ferry  from  Roosevelt  street  to  Paulus  Hook, 


11 


which  lots  are  now,  I am  told,  occupied  by  James  Boorman 
under  a claim  of  title ; but  I find  that  the  original  grant  was 
“ for  the  use  of  said  ferry  ; but  for  no  other  use  or  purpose 
whatsoever,  upon  condition  that  the  ferry  is  to  be  established 
and  fixed  there  forever.’7  And  as  that  condition  has  not 
been  observed,  it  may  well  be  doubted  whether  his  title — 
the  title  upon  which  he  vaunts  himself — and  upon  which  he 
now  makes  his  ungenerous  attack  on  Trinity  Church — 
is  altogether  above  question. 

In  1786,  Trinity  Church  gave  three  lots  of  ground  for  the  use 
of  the  senior  Pastors  of  the  Presbyterian  Congregations  of  the  City. 
These  were  Lots  Nos.  255,  256,  257,  Park  Place. 

But  time  will  not  allow  me  to  enumerate  all  the  benefac- 
tions of  this  church.  In  1800,  they  contributed  towards  a 
market.  In  1810,  two  lots  of  ground  for  a free  school — and 
in  1815,  a further  grant  was  made  to  a free  school.  In  1742, 
this  church  granted  the  land  between  Murray  and  Barclay 
streets,  extending  from  Church  street  to  the  river,  for  the 
erection  and  endowment  of  a college — and  old  Columbia 
still  stands  there  as  a proud  memorial  of  their  beneficence, 
not  only,  but  of  the  early  introduction  of  science  and  learn- 
ing into  the  colony  of  New  York  ; and  its  records  present  a 
lively  history  of  the  humanizing  influences  which  have  been 
exerted  by  that  noble  institution  upon  the  sons  of  this 
Metropolis.  In  a word , the  benefactions  of  this,  church  amount , 
according  to  the  best  estimate  which  can  now  be  made , rating  the 
lands  at  their  present  prices , to  the  enormous  sum  of  Two  Mil- 
lions of  Dollars.  (See  Dr.  Berrien’s  History,  p.  886.) 

This,  then,  is  the  use  which  the  church  makes  of  its 
wealth.  And  does  it  present  a topic  for  Mr.  Boorman’s  re- 
proaches ? 

Who  is  it  that  demands  that  this  Street  should  be 
opened?  James  Boorman  and  his  associates.  I shall 
not  attempt  to  dispute  the  respectability  pf  Mr.  Boorman, 
his  wealth,  nor  his  charities.  With  these  considera- 
tions neither  you  nor  I have  anything  to  do.  He  may  be 
rich  as  Croesus,  munificent  as  a prince,  benevolent  as  How- 
ard, for  aught  I know : but  I have  a rule  laid  down  for  me 


12 


which  I deem  it  always  safe  to  pursue,  and  that  is  to  con- 
sider the  act  proposed  to  be  done,  and  from  that  judge  the 
qualities  of  the  actor,  so  far  as  they  relate  to  that  very  trans- 
action, and  to  none  other ; for  it  would  be  doing  violence  to 
my  duty  as  a man,  to  my  obligations  as  counsel,  to  turn  aside 
from  the  particular  act  under  consideration  to  consider  the 
general  tenor  of  any  man’s  life,  either  to  bepraise  or  censure 
it.  Chaucer  says : — 

“ Loke  who  is  most  vertuous  alway 
Prive  and  apert  and  most  entendeth  ay 
To  do  the  gentle  dedes  that  he  can 
And  take  him  for  the  greatest  gentleman.” 

If  Mr.  Boorman  comes  up  to  this  standard,  as  his  counsel 
asserts,  and  I do  not  deny,  then  he  is  a true  gentleman. 
But  how  does  that  demonstrate  that  this  street  should  be 
opened.  The  argument  would  seem  to  be,  “ Mr.  Boorman 
is  a gentleman,  therefore  the  street  should  be  opened  through 
the  Church-yard.” 

Mr.  Boorman  is,  I am  told,  an  English  gentleman,  who 
has  been  in  this  country  many  years,  and  has,  during  his 
stay  here,  amassed  great  wealth.  Be  it  so.  He  is  the  very 
man  whom  I should  expect  to  be  foremost  in  such  a project 
as  this.  He  has  no  relative,  I presume,  who  distinguished 
himself  in  the  battles  of  the  Revolution.  Ho  patriot  an- 
cestor of  his  lies  mouldering  in  that  sacred  ground — no 
wife  over  whose  corse  his  tears  of  sorrow  were  shed, — no 
brother,  no  sister,  no  mother  buried  there.  Nor  can  it  be 
expected  that  his  bosom  should  swell  with  patriotic  emo- 
tions for  the  remains  of  the  warrior  dead.  I have  yet  to 
learn,  that  in  England,  in  her  cottages  or  in  her  palaces,  any 
praise  was  ever  yet  bestowed  upon  the  heroes  of  our  Revo- 
lution. In  all  places,  there,  among  high  and  low,  they  are 
alike  regarded  and,  often  spoken  of  as  successful  rebels.  Eng- 
land can  never  forget  that  once  we  were  England’s  colonies, 
and  would  have  been  England’s  colonies  still,  but  for  the 
efforts  of  the  very  men  some  of  whom  rest  in  yonder  church- 
yard. Nurtured  where  such  feelings  are  prevalent,  and  seek- 


18 


ing  our  shores  after  the  Revolution  had  been  successful,  it 
would  not  be  at  all  surprising  if  Mr.  Boorman  entertains  no 
hallowed  feeling  for  the  memory  of  the  patriots  whose  lives 
were  sacrificed  in  our  struggle  for  liberty. 

What  participation,  Mr.  Chairman,  had  Mr.  Boorman  in 
the  proceedings  of  the  Protestant  Society  to  secure  the  re- 
spectful interment  of  deceased  Americans  abroad  ? ' I ask 
because  I am  told  that  he  attended  the  meeting  of  that  so- 
ciety at  the  Tabernacle  and  was  particularly  solicitous  that 
our  government  should  take  measures  to  procure  a place  of 
sepulture  in  consecrated  ground  for  Americans  who  die  abroad? 
Is  he  not  now  soliciting  our  government  to  take  measures  for 
the  accomplishment  of  that  object?  What  a picture  of  con- 
sistent, disinterested  benevolence  is  presented  by  this  devo- 
tion of  Mr.  Boorman  to  the  accomplishment  of  so  desirable  an 
object  as  the  procurement  of  a place  of  sepulture  in  consecra- 
ted ground  for  our  countrymen  who  die  in  France,  Austria 
and  Italy,  while  he  is  at  the  same  time  proposing  a measure 
which  involves  the  necessity  of  digging  up  the  bones  of  our 
Revolutionary  patriots  at  home ! Is  this  a fair  specimen  of 
Mr.  Boorman’s  benevolence  ? I hope  not.  I trust  there  is 
some  mistake  in  regard  to  the  matter.  Suppose  Trinity 
Church  had  proposed  to  erect  stores  on  the  ground  which  is 
now  desired  by  Mr.  Boorman  for  this  street : how  clamorous 
would  then  have  been  the  objections  to  the  proposed  dese- 
cration of  the  sacred  remains  of  the  dead.  Is  it  not  fair  to 
presume  that  Mr.  Boorman  would  have  employed  counsel 
to  appear  before  a Committee  of  your  Board  and  protest  in 
thunder  tones  against  the  threatened  outrage.  And  then 
you  would  have  heard  the  indignant  denunciations  of  his 
eloquence,  demanding  that  the  act  should  be  arrested  as  one 
which,  if  consumated,  would  outrage  all  the  better  senti- 
ments of  humanity  and  do  violence  to  the  settled,  fixed,  un- 
alterable will  of  the  people. 

And  who  are  Mr.  Boorman’s  fellow  petitioners?  I know 
not.  A long  list  was  once  presented  to  me  as  the  names  of 
those  who  were  said  to  have  petitioned  for  the  opening  of  this 
street ; but,  so  many  of  those  gentlemen  have  declared  that 


14 


r 


their  names  were  either  in  effect  forged  to  the  petition,  or,  if 
they  had  really  signed  such  a document,  that  it  was  without 
a knowledge  of  its  contents,  and  either  false  pretences  or  a 
suppression  of  the  truth  must  have  been  used  to  procure 
their  signatures,  that  I know  not  who  are  now  his  associ- 
ates. A fraud  so  base  as  that,  is  worthy  only  of  an- 
other genius  than  that  of  Mr.  Boorman.  I can  scarcely 
believe  that  the  frank,  plain  spoken  old  Englishman  would 
do  such  a thing.  It  is  at  war  with  the  traditions  by  which 
an  English  gentleman  is  governed.  Wrong  he  may  be — 
obstinate  he  may  be  ; but  he  never  can  be  otherwise  than 
frank,  plain  and  straight-forward  in  what  he  does.  He  never 
can  stoop  to  so  low  a felony  as  that  of  procuring  signatures 
by  false  pretences,  or  even  by  a suppression  of  the  truth. 

Who  opposes  the  opening  of  the  Street  ? First,  Trinity 
Church.  And  here  be  it  remarked  that  Trinity  Church  has 
refused  a large  sum  of  money  to  allow  the  Street  to  be 
opened.  If  she  had  been  selfish,  unprincipled  and  vile,  as 
she  is  represented,  would  she  not  have  accepted  $62,000  in 
1834,  to  allow  that  to  be  taken  which  is  of  no  possible  pecu- 
niary valiie  to  her,  and  which  in  effect  belongs  to  the  rela- 
tives and  friends  of  those  who  are  interred  in  f.her  vaults. 
This  one  fact  is  a sufficient  refutation  of  all  the  calumnies 
uttered  against  her.  She  opposes  her  own  pecuniary  inter- 
ests. She  refuses  a large  sum  of  money,  and  still  proves 
faithful  to  her  trust.  For  it  is  plain  enough  that  if,  in  1834, 
the  property  of  Trinity  Church  was  assessed  at  $62,000 — it 
would  now,  owing  to  the  immense  appreciation  of  lots  in 
that  neighborhood,  be  estimated  at  $200,000  at  the  least. 
And  think  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  property  holders 
in  that  neighborhood  would  be  willing  to  pay  such  a sum 
for  opening  this  street  ? If  they  objected  to  the  payment  of 
$62,000  in  1834,  as  too  onerous  then , think  you  that  they 
will  deem  $200,000  now)  any  less  burdensome?  Sir , the 
property  holders  will  be  among  the  most  zealous  opponents  of  the 
measure , and  the  expensive  proceedings  to  open  this  street  must 
ultimately  be  discontinued , and  the  costs  incurred  charged  to  the 
City)  under  the  auspices  of  the  Reform  Administration. 


15 


In  the  second  place,  the  application  is  opposed  by  such 
men  as  the  Hon.  F.  R.  Tillou,  your  Recorder, — the  noble, 
public  spirited,  patriotic  reformer,  Tillou  ; ever  in  the  van  of 
whatever  movement  for  the  public  good, — and  of  such  men 
as  Capt.  Tillou,  General  Haight,  Mr.  Townsend,  and  many 
others  who  have  friends  and  relatives  buried  there.  The 
Recorder  has  twenty -two  relatives  who  are  buried  in  the 
line  of  the  proposed  street.  These  men  oppose  it  on  the 
ground  that  it  would  be  an  unnecessary  and  ruthless  dese- 
cration of  the  dead. 

Again,  it  would  cost,  according  to  the  estimates  made, 
nearly  $100,000  to  disinter  and  remove  the  bodies  buried 
there.  This,  too,  whatever  it  be,  must  be  added  to  the 
assessment  to  be  paid  by  the  property  holders,  or  by  the 
City.  Will  they  thank  you  for  such  an  additional  burden? 

Having  said  thus  much  negatively  by  way  of  reply  to  the 
argument  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  applicants,  for  the 
opening  of  the  street,  and  of  the  persons  who  ask  for,  and 
those  who  oppose  the  measure,  permit  me  now  to  say  a few 
words  by  way  of  affirmative  argument  against  that  measure. 

And  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I propose,  in  my  own  humble 
way,  to  offer  some  suggestions,  to  show — 

Firsts  That  the  proposed  opening  of  Albany  street  would 
be  an  act  in  derogation  of  the  grant  made  by  the  city  of 
Hew  York  to  Trinity  Church  in  1703,  and  that  it  would  be 
a repudiation  of  a solemn  compact  between  the  city  as  gran- 
tor and  the  church  as  grantee. 

Second , That  it  is  not  demanded  by  public  necessity. 

Third , I shall  endeavor  to  show  that  it  would  be  a viola- 
tion of  the  policy  of  the  law  to  open  this  street. 

Fourth , I shall,  in  conclusion,  urge  that  Christianity  is  a 
part  of  the  law  of  the  land,  and  that  it  would  be  a violation 
of  the  precepts  and  the  spirit  of  Christianity  thus  to  scatter 
to  the  four  winds  of  heaven  the  ashes  of  the  dead. 

Nor  shall  I offer  any  apology  for  presenting  such  conside- 
rations to  gentlemen  selected,  as  you  have  so  recently  been, 
from  the  body  of  your  fellow-citizens,  to  occupy  the  high  and 
honorable  positions  you  now  hold — selected  because  of  your 


16 


known  probity  and  true  moral  worth  in  the  community. 
Why  are  we  not  discussing  the  question  before  the  Board  of 
Aldermen  of  1853  ? Is  it  not  because  the  spirit  of  the  hon- 
est masses  was  aroused  during  the  recent  election  in  this 
city,  and  because  that  spirit  demanded  that  honorable  men 
should  be  selected  to  fill  the  places  you  now  hold,  in  the 
stead  of  those  in  whom  they  could  no  longer  place  confi- 
dence. You  are  not  at  all  embarrassed  by  the  action  of  the 
Board  of  Aldermen,  whose  places  you  now  fill ; any  act  of 
theirs,  instead  of  furnishing  evidence  of  the  right  in  this 
community,  is  the  rather  regarded  as  cogent  evidence  of  the 
contrary.  To  prove  that  any  act  of  theirs  was  right,  re- 
quires an  argument ; to  show  that  it  was  wrong,  but  the  sug- 
gestion that  they  were  its  authors.  I speak,  of  course,  of 
the  majority  of  the  late  Common  Council.  There  were  men, 
in  both  Boards,  of  great  moral  wworth — men  as  highly  es- 
teemed as  any  others  in  the  city,  and  who  have  passed 
through  that  ordeal,  unscathed.  But  it  is  needless  to  pro- 
nounce their  praises.  Their  worth  has  been  appreciated  by 
the  unerring  instincts  of  their  constituents,  and  they  have 
already  assumed  important  and  influential  positions  in  the 
newly  organized  government.  As  well  might  it  be  urged, 
that  the  resolutions  of  the  late  Common  Council  in  favor  of 
a Broadway  railroad,  and  their  resolutions  taunting  the 
courts,  were  binding  upon  their  successors,  as  that  the  ephe- 
meral expressions  of  opinion  embodied  in  the  resolutions 
before  you,  possess  any  binding  force. 

Gentlemen,  your  predecessors,  in  the  full  tide  of  their 
power,  derided  all  control,  threw  off  all  restraint,  seized 
upon  things  sacred  as  well  as  things  secular,  and  at  last,  as 
a fitting  termination  of  their  ever-memorable  labors,  like  the 
proud  prince  of  Babylon,  they  seized  upon  the  appurte- 
nances of  God’s  house ; and,  while  revelling  in  vain  boasts  of 
their  power,  an  unseen  hand  was  writing  on  the  wall  with  a 
pen  bathed  in  vivid  lightning,  in  characters  of  fire,  “ Mene, 
mene , tekel  upharsin” — “ Thou  art  weighed  in  the  balances 
and  found  wanting.”  Do  you  wish  to  complete  their  de- 
signs ?— -i to  follow  their  example  ? I will  not  add,  to  share 


17 


their  fate ; for  I know  that  consequences  to  themselves  will 
not  be  regarded  by  members  of  this  Common  Council,  and 
that  they  will  seek  only  the  good  of  their  constituents,  al- 
though they  will  disregard  alike  the  public  admonitions  and 
the  private  interests  of  busy  members  of  dictatorial,  self-con- 
stituted committees  of  interference. 

Let  us,  then,  approach  the  consideration  of  the  question 
with  no  feeling  of  embarrassment,  that  we  are  called  on  to 
repeal  a law — for  no  law  has  yet  been  passed.  The  matter 
now  stands  before  you  as  a new  proposition.  It  has  no 
prestige  of  authority  to  commend  it  to  your  favorable  con- 
sideration. What,  then,  is  it  which  is  sought  on  the  one 
hand  to  be  done,  and  which,  on  the  other  hand,  we  strenu- 
ously resist.  You  are  called  upon  to  lend  your  sanction  to 
a proposition  to  exhume  the  bodies  of  some  thirty  or  forty 
thousand  persons,  among  whom  there  are  many  officers  and 
soldiers  of  the  Revolution,  whose  ashes  lie  mouldering  with 
their  mother  earth.  A proposition  to  do  an  act,  the  mere 
mention  of  which  is  so  startling,  demands  careful  scrutiny 
into  the  rights  with  which  it  interferes,  and  the  grounds  on 
which  it  is  urged. 

I.  The  opening  of  this  street  would  be  a violation  of  a 
solemn  grant  and  compact.  The  ground  proposed  to  be 
taken,  was  used  as  a common  place  of  burial  for  all  deno- 
minations, for  nearly  a century  before  Trinity  Church  was 
built.  It  was  set  apart  by  the  Dutch,  and  by  them  conse- 
crated as  a place  sacred  to  the  last  rites  which  separate  the 
dead  from  the  living.  Here,  without  the  walls  of  the  city, 
beyond  the  sound  of  the  active  pursuits  of  life,  where  no 
voice  of  revelry  was  heard,  our  Dutch  forefathers  selected  a 
sequestered  spot,  in  a deep  valley,  as  the  last  resting-place 
for  the  honored  dead.  The  affectionate  mother,  the  honored 
father,  were  here  placed  side  by  side;  the  tender,  loving 
wife  and  the  devoted  husband,  whose  remains  were  here 
interred,  were  deemed  safe  from  Yandal  hands;  and  their 
humble  graves  bespoke  at  once  the  poverty  of  their  origin 
and  their  devoted  regard  for  the  sanctity  of  the  tomb.  And 
here  let  us  not  forget,  that  these  were  not  members  of  the 

3 


18 


Episcopal  Church.  No  sir : their  associations  were  with  that 
glorious  band  of  Hollanders  who  sought  civil  and  religious 
liberty  on  the  newly  settled  shores  of  New  Amsterdam. 
For  these,  then,  I plead — for  the  dead,  who  cannot  speak. 
Not  for  Trinity  Church — not  for  the  vestry  of  that  church 
— but  for  those  who  were  alien  to  its  services — nurtured  in 
the  faith  of  our  venerated  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  and 
whose  mortal  remains  were  committed  to  their  mother  earth, 
consecrated  by  services  performed  in  a language  unknown 
to  the  church  now  called  Trinity — and  whose  tombs  were 
inscribed  nearly  a century  before  Trinity  Church  had  an 
existence.  Now,  sir,  let  me  remind  your  honorable  com- 
mittee, that  even  if  Trinity  Church  were  obnoxious  to  all 
the  objections  which  have  been  urged  against  it  here — even 
if  this  abusive  pamphlet  were  true  as  it  is  false,  it  would  in 
no  respect  invalidate  the  considerations  I press  upon  you. 
Those  who  were  buried  nearly  a century  before  Trinity 
Church  was  built,  cannot,  by  any  sophistry,  be  made  res- 
ponsible for  its  acts  or  omissions.  For  the  honored  dead  I 
speak,  and  in  their  name  I protest  against  the  threatened  ex- 
humation— in  the  name  of  the  tens  of  thousands,  who,  if  you 
could  call  them  from  their  dark  charnel-house,  would  appear 
in  their  white  robes  and  protest  against  this  act.  And  how 
would  such  an  objection  appear  in  the  face  of  such  an  audi- 
ence? Would  an  argument  that,  a century  after  their  inter- 
ment, another  class  of  men  had  arisen  who  had  erected  a tem- 
ple near  the  remains  of  the  dead,  and  that  temple  had  since 
then  not  been  in  proper  hands,'  be  regarded  as  an  answer  to 
their  appeal  ? No,  sir : no.  But,  lest  by  implication  it  may  be 
said  that  I admit  the  force  of  the  objections  urged  against  Trin- 
ity Church,  permit  me  to  say,  on  the  contrary,  that  I think  that 
church  worthy  of  all  honor ; entitled  to  unmeasured  praise 
for  the  firm  course  it  has  uniformly  taken,  no  matter  at  what 
pecuniary  loss,  to  protect  the  remains  of  the  dead ; and  I 
for  one,  as  a member  of  the  Dutch  Church,  thank  them  on 
behalf  of  the  old  Dutch  families,  whose  remains  they  have 
guarded  with  such  commendable  fidelity.  Nor  do  I per- 
ceive, in  the  long  history  of  the  various  proceedings  to  open 


19 


an  avenue  through  the  bones  of  our  Manhattanese  ances- 
tors, that  Trinity  Church  has  pursued  any  other  course  than 
that  pointed  out  by  the  pole-star  of  religion. 

To  resume  my  history  of  the  ground.  After  it  had  been 
occupied  by  the  Dutch  and  their  successors,  as  a city  bury- 
ing-ground,  for  nearly  a«  century,  the  city  of  New  5Tork,  in 
1703,  granted  it,  under  the  broad  seal  of  the  corporation  of 
New  York,  to  the  corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  to  be  held 
by  the  grantees  as  a perpetual  place  of  sepulture  for  the  peo- 
ple of  the  city  of  New  York,  of  all  denominations,  and  irre- 
spective of  the  condition  or  circumstances,  race  or  lineage  of 
those  whose  bodies  were  to  be  committed  to  that  consecrated 
ground.  To  provide  against  the  possibility  of  the  rejection 
of  the  poor,  a very  small  sum  was  prescribed  as  a stated  bu- 
rial-fee, upon  the  payment  of  which  the  sexton  was  bound 
to  commit  earth  to  earth  and  dust  to  dust,  or  the  estate  of 
the  church  in  the  grounds  would  have  been  forfeited.  In 
consequence  of  the  facility  for  making  interments  there,  and 
the  low  rates  to  be  paid  for  such  interments,  it  became  the 
common  and  most  usual  place  of  burial,  and  so  continued 
down  to  1823,  when  the  ordinance  of  this  city  was  passed, 
forbidding  further  burials.  It  is  generally  estimated,  that 
from  thirty  to  forty  thousand  persons  have  been  interred 
there.  I know  that  the  estimate  is  disputed  by  the  appli- 
cants for  this  measure,  but,  so  long  as  I can  vouch  for  my 
statement,  the  report  of  the  committee  of  the  Board  of  Aider- 
men,  made  in  1847,  and  the  other  evidence  before  your 
committee,  I may  well  assume  the  accuracy  of  the  state- 
ment without  stopping  to  prove  it.  Now  let  us  revert,  for 
a moment,  to  the  grant.  The  grant  of  the  city  to  the  church 
expresses,  substantially,  that  the  ground  shall  be  held  by  the 
church  in  fee-simple  for  ever,  as  a general  burying-ground. 
In  derogation  of  that  grant,  the  same  city  now  seeks  to  seize 
the  property  which  it  once  solemnly  granted,  and  appro- 
priate it  to  the  aid  of  a private  speculation;  or,  if  you  please, 
for  the  sake  cf  the  argument,  for  the  purpose  of  opening  an 
unnecessary  street.  In  other  words,  it  is  proposed  to  this 
city  to  repudiate  the  grant  so  solemnly  made,  and  treat  it  as 


20 


though  its  corporate  faith  were  not  irrevocably  pledged  to 
the  literal  fulfilment  of  all  the  terms  of  that  grant.  To  illus- 
trate : Suppose,  Mr.  Chairman,  a gentleman  were  to  convey 
to  you  a piece  of  ground,  upon  trust  that  you  should  hold  it 
for  the  benefit  of  the  living  poor,  and  apply  its  proceeds  to 
their  support,  and  afterwards  the  grantor  should  himself  seek 
to  evade  the  grant.  Would  not  all  the  world  deem  the  act 
dishonorable,  and  execrate  his  memory  ? But  that  is  just 
what  it  is  now  proposed  to  the  corporation  of  New  York  to 
do  in  this  matter ; the  only  difference  being,  that  the  corpora- 
tion created  a trust  for  the  benefit  of  their  dead the  trust 
in  the  case  supposed  being  for  the  benefit  of  the  living. 
Shall  such  an  act  of  bad  faith  receive  the  sanction  of  honest 
men?  To  repudiate  a bond  was  thought  to  imply  pecu- 
liar dishonor  in  the  state  of  Mississippi,  and  fastened  an 
indelible  blot  on  her  fair  escutcheon ; and  shall  we  be 
so  illiberal  as  to  pronounce  Mississippi  infamous  for  re- 
pudiating her  bonds,  whilst  we  at  the  same  time  repu- 
diate our  deeds?  Sir,  you  will  not  tolerate  a distinc- 
tion between  Mississippi  and  New  York.  The  bonds 
of  Mississippi  were  issued  for  contemplated  public  im- 
provements, the  repudiation  was  placed  on  grounds  ofi 
public  policy.  Such  was  the  shallow  pretence  ; and  be  as- 
sured that  no  arguments  were  wanting  to  show,  in  quite  as 
specious  language  as  any  which  can  be  used  here,/ that  when 
public  policy  demands  repudiation,  the  people  must  repu- 
diate. So  here  it  is  said,  that  public  policy  demands  that 
the  city  should  repudiate  its  grant  for  the  benefit  of  this 
pseudo  improvement ; but  believe  me,  sir,  that  public  policy 
which  demands  the  sacrifice  of  the  honor  of  a state  or  a city, 
must  be  more  palpable,  more  urgent,  more  strikingly  impera- 
tive than  any  presented  by  this  application.  Public  policy, 
the  law  and  the  dictates  of  morality — I will  not  add,  of  com- 
mon honesty — concur  to  condemn  the  proposed  act.  Sir,  this 
is  no  ordinary  repudiation.  It  is  not  merely  repudiating  a 
compact  with  the  living , but  a solemn  compact  with  the 
dead.  For  the  sum  paid  as  a burial-fee,  the  city,  through 
its  custodian  Trinity  Church,  entered  into  a solemn  compact 


21 


with  eleven  generations  of  men  who  have  now  long  since 
ceased  to  mingle  with  the  affairs  of  the  living,  that  the  re- 
mains resting  in  that  ground,  should  lie  there  without 
molestation,  and  the  burial-ground  should  be  forever  a 
sacred  place  of  deposit  for  their  ashes.  These  parties  are 
the  beneficiaries  of  the  trust  vested  in  Trinity  Church,  and 
to  open  this  street  would  be  to  repudiate  that  solemn  com- 
pact between  the  living  and  the  dead.  Shall  such  a compact 
be  repudiated  with  impunity  ? But  it  is  said,  that  the  great 
interests  of  commerce  demand  it.  Believe  me,  sir, 

“ It  is  an  impious  greatness, 

And  mixed  with  too  much  horror  to  be  envied.” 

II.  But,  sir,  I deny  that  the  interests  of  commerce  demand 
it.  The  public  does  not  demand  it.  You  are  called  upon  by 
a few  private  individuals  only.  What  great  public  interest 
demands  it?  Do  the  merchants  demand  it?  Ho,  sir;  they 
ask  not  for  it.  Do  the  carmen  ask  for  it  ? The  grade  of 
Thames  street  and  Hector  street — and  the  grade  of  Albany 
street  would  be  the  same — is  so  steep  as  to  unfit  them  for 
their  use,  and  they  ask  it . not.  Our  carmen  are  men  who 
would  scorn  to  travel  over  the  bones  of  the  sacred  dead ; 
and  if  this  street  were  made,  they  would  avoid  it  as  a plague- 
spot. 

Do  the  people  demand  it?  No,  sir.  No.  A thousand 
times  no  ! They  do  not  ask  a new  street  within  forty  feet  of 
another  street.  And  Albany  street,  if  opened,  would  be 
within  forty  feet  of  Thames  street,  with  a single  house  be- 
tween them. 

Try  this  question  of  utility  by  another  standard:  Sup- 
pose the  ground,  proposed  to  be  taken  for  this  street,  be- 
longed to  any  private  citizen,  Mr.  Boorman,  for  example, 
and  that  it  had  no  grave-yard  upon  it.  Would  any  one  then 
think  the  public  interests  could  be  subserved  by  taking  it 
for  the  street?  Then,  of  course,  its  full  value  of  $200,000 
for  building-lots  would  be  placed  upon  it.  And  would  any 
one,  in  such  a case,  venture  to  suggest  that  the  public  could 
be  so  much  benefitted  as  to  warrant  the  payment  of  such  a 
sum  of  money  ? No,  sir.  It  would  then  be  seen  that  the 


22 


opening  of  the  street  could  not  benefit  the  public,  and  the 
price  to  be  paid  would  be  too  great  to  forward  the  interests 
of  the  lot-speculators.  Mr.  Boorman  would  then  object  to 
the  taking  of  the  lots,  upon  the  ground  that  it  would  be 
taking  his  private  property  for  private  uses,  and  the  scheme 
would  be  frustrated. 

The  plain  truth  of  the  matter  is  simply  this : the  persons 
who  claim  to  open  this  street,  think,  what  their  counsel  ex- 
presses, that  they  can  take  this  church-yard  for  nothing ; that 
it  will  not  cost  a cent  by  way  of  assessment,  and  the  open- 
ing of  the  street  will  be  a very  handsome  speculation.  It 
will  open  an  avenue  to  their  lots;  give  the  lots  desirable 
fronts  to  make  them  saleable ; and  that  this  great  object  can 
be  accomplished  for  just  nothing.  The  speculation  is  cer- 
tain ; the  loss,  they  think,  cannot  be  a penny.  Did  they  not 
know,  when  they  purchased  these  lots,  that  the  church  stood 
there  ? Has  the  church  deceived  them  by  closing  an  avenue 
to  their  property  ? That  is  not  pretended : all  they  ask  is, 
that  the  church  will  give  away  its  lands ; or,  rather,  they 
modestly  ask,  that  you  should  forcibly  confiscate  the  ground 
of  this  church — that  lots,  which  have  been  purchased  at  low 
prices,  may,  in  Mr.  Boorman’s  words,  “be  materially  enhanc- 
ed in  value.”  In  other  words,  you  are  asked  to  dig  up  the 
bones  of  our  ancestors  to  aid  a city  lot-speculation.  It  is  a 
bold,  bad  project,  for  which  no  excuse,  no  apology  can  be 
offered. 

Believe  me,  sir,  popular  sentiment  is  opposed  to  the  opening 
of  this  street.  A more  unpopular  measure  could  not  be  sug- 
gested. Submit  the  question  to  the  people,  and  nine-tenths  of 
the  whole  population  would  vote  against  it.  This,  of  itself,  is 
sufficient  to  show  that  the  public  interests  do  not  demand  it. 
I am  one  of  those  who  believe  that  the  instincts  of  the  people 
are  sure  to  be  right.  Hear  what  the  unbiassed  expression  of 
the  press  is  in  regard  to  it.  And  when  I speak  of  the  press, 
allow  me  to  remind  you  that  our  newspapers  present  a true 
mirror  of  popular  sentiment.  The  history  of  the  world,  for 
a day,  is  contained  in  each  issue.  I speak  not  now  of  cards 
inserted  in  the  newspapers  by  the  parties  interested  in  this 


23 


measure,  but  of  editorial  articles,  written  in  newspapers 
above  the  taint  of  suspicion — newspapers  which  the  parties 
to  the  controversy  cannot  influence,  much  less  control ; and 
whose  editors  are  men  too  pure  to  listen  to  anything  but  the 
dictates  of  duty.  Such,  for  example,  as  the  Commercial  Ad- 
vertiser, and  the  other  papers  which  have  contained  editori- 
als on  this  question.  An  attempt  has  been  made  to  impart  a 
sectarian  character  to  this  controversy,  but  it  is  signally  out 
of  place.  It  is  not  a war  of  sects.  The  unanimous  expres- 
sion of  whatever  sect  is  against  the  measure — Catholics,  Me- 
thodists, Presbyterians  and  Baptists,  members  of  the  Dutch 
and  Episcopal  Churches  alike  protest  against  it.  Hear  what 
the  editor  of  the  Freeman's  Journal  says  on  the  subject: 
“But  on  the  score  of  human  decency,  we  protest  against  a 
needless,  and,  as  far  as  the  public  at  large  are  concerned,  a 
profitless  outrage  upon  the  mortal  remains  of  multitudes  of 
the  honest  and  respectable  dead  of  this  city  in  its  earlier 
times.” — (Freeman's  Journal,  of  22d  February,  1854.)  And 
the  Citizen , with  the  warmth  and  earnestness  which  ever 
glow  in  the  honest  hearts  of  Irishmen — men  illustrious  for 
a self-sacrificing  devotion,  almost  unknown  to  any  other 
single  race — thus  utters  the  sentiment  of  its  large  circle  of 
readers:  “This  attempt  to  violate  the  resting-place  of  the 
dead  has  excited  general  indignation.”  ( Citizen , 26th  Feb- 
ruary, 1854.)  I have  selected  these  two  newspapers,  be- 
cause no  man  who  has  any  knowledge  of  the  gentlemen  by 
whom  they  are  conducted,  will  venture  to  suggest  that  they 
could  be  influenced  by  any  other  motive,  in  penning  such 
articles,  than  to  express  an  honest  indignation  at  the  threat- 
ened perpetration  of  such  an  outrage  against  the  deep-seated 
conviction  of  all  classes,  of  whatever  lineage,  race  or  sect. 

ISTor  does  this  application  come  commended  by  a compli- 
ance with  the  rules  of  law  in  regard  to  devoting  property 
to  the  use  of  a street.  It  is  not  an  application  to  take  pri- 
vate property  for  public  uses  ; to  do  which  it  is  only  neces- 
sary to  show  that  public  convenience  requires  it : but  it 
presents  itself  in  a totally  different  aspect.  Instead  of  being 
an  application  to  take  private  property  for  public  uses , it  is  an 


24 


attempt  to  take  property  already  dedicated  to  public  uses1  for  the 
purpose  of  subjecting  that  public  property  to  forward  the  inter- 
ests of  a mere  private  speculation.  In  other  words,  to  take 
property  already  solemnly  appropriated  to  the  nse  of  the 
public,  and  devote  it  to  the  purpose  of  enhancing  the  value 
of  city  lots,  and  bringing  them  into  market ; and  this,  too, 
not  at  the  behest  of  the  public,  but  upon  the  application  of 
a few  individuals.  If,  however,  this  cemetry  is  to  be  regard- 
ed as  private  property,  then  it  is  equally  objectionable ; for 
then  it  seeks  to  take  private  property  for  private  uses , in  vio- 
lation of  the  constitution.  u The  constitution,  by  authoriz- 
ing the  appropriation  of  private  property  to  public  use,  im- 
pliedly declares  that,  for  any  other  use,  private  property 
shall  not  be  taken  from  one,  and  applied  to  the  private  use 
of  another.  It  is  in  violation  of  natural  right.  If  it  is  not 
in  violation  of  the  letter  of  the  constitution,  it  is  of  its  spirit, 
and  cannot  be  supported.”  (Opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court 
in  the  matter  of  Albany  street , 11  Wend.  150.) 

The  right  of  eminent  domain,  whatever  it  may  be — and  I 
shall  not  stop  to  define  it — has  no  application  to  such  a case 
as  this ; for  there  is  no  great  state  or  public  necessity  requi- 
ring it,  no  public  convenience  to  be  subserved  by  it : and  the 
existence  of  either  the  necessity  or  the  convenience  must  be 
demonstrated  to  exist  to  justify  its  seizure  in  pursuance  of 
the  right  of  eminent  domain.  {American  Print  Works  agt. 
Lawrence , Ch.  J.  Greene’s  Opinion,  p.  270.) 

III.  It  would  be  a violation  of  the  policy  of  the  law  to 
open  the  street.  (See  Beatty  v.  Kerrs , 2 Peters’  Rep.  566, 
7 Term  Rep.  723.)  In  the  case  of  Hunter  agt.  The  Trustees 
of  Sandy  Hill , reported  in  the  6th  vol.  Hill’s  Reports,  p.  407, 
Judge  Beardsley  said: 

“ Dedication,  as  the  term  is  used  in  reference  to  this  sub- 
ject, is  the  act  of  devoting  or  giving  property  for  some  pro- 
per object,  and  in  such  manner  as  to  conclude  the  owner.  The 
law  which  governs  such  cases  is  anomalous.  Under  it, 
rights  are  parted  with  and  acquired  ir^  modes  and  by  means 
unusual  and  peculiar.  Ordinarily,  some  conveyance  or  writ- 
ten instrument  is  required  to  transmit  a right  to  real  pro- 


25 


perty,  but  the  law  applicable  to  dedication  is  different.  A 
dedication  may  be  made  without  writing,  by  act  in  pais  as 
well  as  by  deed.  It  is  not  at  all  necessary  that  the  owner 
should  part  with  the  title  which  he  has ; for  dedication  has 
respect  to  the  possession,  and  not  to  the  permanent  estate. 
Its  effect  is  not  to  deprive  a party  of  title  to  his  lands,  but 
to  estop  him,  while  the  dedication  continues  in  force,  from 
asserting  that  right  of  exclusive  possession  and  enjoyment 
which  the  owner  of  property  ordinarily  has.  ( Cincinnati 
agt.  Lessee  of  White , .6  Pet.  Rep.,  431,  438.)  The  principle 
upon  which  the  estoppel  rests,  is,  that  it  would  be  dishonest, 
immoral  or  indecent,  and,  in  some  instances,  even  sacriligious, 
to  reclaim  at  pleasure  property  which  has  been  solemnly 
devoted  to  the  use  of  the  public,  or  in  furtherance  of  some 
charitable  or  pious  object.  The  law , therefore , will  not  per - 
mil  any  one  thus  to  break  his  own  plighted  faith  to  disap- 
point honest  expectations  thus  excited,  and  upon  which  reli- 
ance has  been  placed.  The  principle  is  one  of  sound  morals 
and  of  most  obvious  equity,  and  is  in  the  strictest  sense  a 
part  of  the  law  of  the  land.  It  is  known  in  all  courts,  and 
may  as  well  be  enforced  at  law  as  in  equity. 

“ The  land  in  question  was  dedicated  as  a grave-yard , and 
a the  ashes  of  the  dead  should  be  allowed  to  repose  in  undisturbed 
“ solitude  and  quiet.  The  grave  is  hallowed.  This  sentiment  is 
“ deeply  seated  m the  human  heart , and  is  all  but  universal.  It 
“ exists  with  scarcely  less  intensity  of  strength  in  the  breast  of  the 
u savage  than  in  that  of  civilized  man , repelling  any  rude  approach 
11  to  the  resting-place  of  the  dead , and  forbidding , as  sacriligious , 
“ its  use  for  any  of  the  secular  ,and  common  purposes  of  life.  A 
11 just  deference  to  this  sentiment , and  a proper  respect  for  the  feel- 
uings  of  those  whose  friends  have  been  buried  in  the  ground  now 
a in  contest , are  wholly  incompatible  with  the<right  to  exclusive  pos- 
11  session  set  up  by  the  plaintiff  T 

This  is  the  language  of  one  of  the  ablest  jurists  of  this 
state.  Nothing  that  I could  say  would  a^dd  to  its  force.  Why, 
does  it  not  emphatically  apply  to  this  ground  ? Has  it  not 
been  solemnly  dedicated  and  devoted  “to  the  use  of  the  pub- 
lic? ” Will  the  law,  therefore,  permit  any  one  to  break  the 

4 


26 


plighted  faith  of  the  city,  and  disappoint  the  honest  expecta- 
tions excited  by  this  pledge  of  that  faith,  upon  which  it  has 
been  “used  for  this  pious  object” — and  should  not  “the 
ashes  of  the  dead  be  allowed  to  repose  in  undisturbed  soli- 
tude and  quiet?  ” Turn,  for  a moment,  from  this  language 
of  the  courts,  to  the  expressions  of  the  legislature.  What 
does  our  statute  say  in  regard  to  the  removal  of  dead  bodies 
from  their  graves  ? (2  R.  S.  683;  § 13 :)  “ Every  person  who 
shall  remove  the  dead  body  of  any  human  being  frorii  the 
grave  or  other  place  of  interment,  for  the  purpose  of  selling 
the  same,  or  for  the  purpose  of  dissection,  or  from  mere  wan- 
tonness, shall,  upon  conviction,  be  punished  by  imprisonment 
in  a state  prison  not  exceeding  five  years,  or  in  a county  jail 
not  exceeding  one  year,  or  by  a fine  not  exceeding  five  hun- 
dred dollars,  or  by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment.”  Let 
us  mark  the  language  of  this  section,  and  we  may  gather 
thence  the  legislative  intention  and  policy  of  the  law.  It 
denounces  exhumation  as  a crime,  whether  the  motive  be 
mere  gain  by  selling,  or  when  the  person  is  even  impelled 
by  a desire  to  promote  medical  science,  or  when  “ mere  wan - 
tonness  ” actuates  him.  In  each  case  the  act  is  alike  pro- 
nounced unlawful,  and  a penalty  declared  upon  the  offender. 
Think  you  the  law  would  have  been  thus  strict  if  the  law- 
giver had  not  been  persuaded  of  a deep-seated  conviction,  that 
the  act  denounced  was  abhorent  to  the  universal  sentiment 
of  mankind  ? He  who,  “ from  mere  wantonnessf  removes 
the  dead,  is  declared  by  the  laws  to  be  a criminal.  This  ap- 
plication to  open  Albany  street  I cannot  view  in  any  other 
light  than  an  attempt  to  disinter  the  dead  from  “ mere  wan- 
tonness,” or  a worse  motive,  the  desire  of  gain. 

Who  is  it  that  asks  for  the  opening  of  Albany  street ; and 
for  what  object?  James  Boorman,  a rich  English  gentle- 
man, asks  that  it  may  be  opened,  that  his  property  may 
thereby  appreciate  in  value.  In  his  communication  to  the 
Journal  of  Commerce , Mr.  Boorman  concedes  that  “it  is 
undoubtedly  true”  that  his  property  will  be  materially 
enhanced  in  value  by  opening  the  proposed  street.  His 
counsel  here  informs  us  that,  if  opened,  he  shall  con- 


i 


27 


tend  that  Trinity  Church  will  be  entitled  to  no  assessment 
for  the  land ; because,  says  the  counsel,  the  ground  is  dedi- 
cated to  the  purpose  of  a cemetery,  and  on  the  authority  of 
the  Albany  street  case,  in  the  eleventh  volume  of  Wendell’s 
Eeports,  page  150,  he  believes  this  church  would  not  be  en- 
titled to  a cent  of  the  assessment.  Mark  this  bold  project 
then  displayed  in  its  true  colors.  Mr.  James  Boorman  asks 
for  the  graves  of  our  fathers,  that  his  land  may  be  rendered 
more  valuable,  and  he  asks  that  the  land  of  the  chnrch  may 
be  taken  for  nothing,  that  he  may  be  made  all  the  richer. 
No  gentleman,  occupying  Mr.  Boorman’s  position  in  this 
matter,  has  a right  to  assail  the  motives  of  Trinity  Church, 
as  he  certainly  has  done,  directly  and  indirectly,  in  his  own 
person  and  by  his  representatives. 

Try  the  motives  of  that  body  by  a very  simple  standard : 

Trinity  Church,  in  1834,  was  offered  sixty-two  thousand 
dollars  for  the  ground  proposed  to  be  taken,  to  which  the 
church  has  a merely  legal  title,  as  custodian  for  the  sacred 
dead  interred  in  her  vaults.  Now,  if  the  church  were  so 
wicked,  one  would  suppose  that  the  most  natural  thing  in 
the  world  would  have  been  for  her  to  have  accepted  the 
offer  of  $62,000,  prove  recreant  to  her  trust,  and  consent  to 
the  opening  of  the  street,  which,  in  no  pecuniary  sense,  could 
injure  her  a penny.  On  the  contrary,  the  church  refused 
the  tempting  bribe,  and  preferred,  and  still  prefers  to  retain, 
in  lieu  thereof,  the  bones  of  the  poor  who  have  been  buried 
in  her  ground.  And,  notwithstanding  all  this,  the  pamphlet- 
eer representing  and  advocating  Mr.  Boorman’s  interest, 
whoever  he  may  be,  charges  this  church  with  avarice,  pride, 
and  all  the  deadly  sins.  To  my  mind,  the  self-denying  con- 
stancy of  the  church,  in  refusing  that  large  sum  of  money, 
and  continuing  faithful  to  her  trust,  is  above  praise. 

IY.  There  is  another  source  of  law  to  which  I must  beg 
to  call  your  attention.  It  is  found  in  a book  of  paramount 
authority — the  Bible.  But  some  may  say,  that  the  Bible  is 
not  the  law  of  the  land.  Hear  what  Lord  Chief  Justice  Best 
says  on  the  subject.  I read  from  the  case  of  Bird  v.  Hol- 
brook, (4  Bing.,  638.)  “It  has  been  argued,”  (says that  emi- 


28 


nent  judge,)  “ it  has  been  argued  that  the  law  does  not  com- 
pel every  line  of  conduct  which  humanity  or  religion  may 
require  ; but,  there  is  no  act  which  Christianity  forbids,  that 
the  law  will  not  reach.  If  it  were  otherwise,  Christianity 
would  not  be,  as  it  has  always  been  held  to  <be,  part  of  the 
law  of  England.”  And  I would  remind  you,  sir,  that,  by 
our  constitution  of  1777,  the  common  law  of  England  was 
adopted  and  made  part  of  the  law  of  the  state  of  New  York, 
and  has  ever  continued  to  be,  and  now  is,  the  law  of  this 
state,  coAstantly  acted  upon  in  our  courts. 

That  Christianity  forbids  the  desecration  of  the  dead,  re- 
quires no  argument.  Ever  since  the  introduction  of  Chris- 
tianity, the  remains  of  the  dead  have  been  held  sacred.  The 
advent  of  religion  marked  an  entire  revolution  in  the  mode 
of  disposing  of  the  dead. 

The  Romans  kindled  the  funeral  pyre  under  the  remains  of 
deceased  friends,  but  when  Paul  preached  to  them,  in  thrilling 
tones,  the  resurrection  of  the  body  and  the  life  everlasting,  the 
converts  to  the  new  faith  were  carefully  placed  in  the  Tufa,  in 
subterraneous  caverns,  where  the  solemn  rites  of  sepulture 
were  performed  by  the  primitive  Christians  over  their  mar- 
tyred brethren  in  days  of  persecution  and  of  danger.  These 
caverns  still  remain,  as  the  catacombs  near  Rome  bear  wit- 
ness. The  elaborately-wrought  sarcophigi,  the  proud  mau- 
soleums, which  meet  the  eye  of  the  beholder  on  every  hand 
in  the  old  world,  all  bear  silent  evidence  of  the  universality 
of  this  sentiment.  In  a word,  he  who  can  exclaim,  “ I know 
that  my  Redeemer  liveth,  and  that  he  shall  stand  at  the 
latter  day  upon  the  earth  : and  though,  after  my  skin,  worms 
destroy  this  body,  yet  in  my  flesh  shall  I see  God,” — he  who 
believes  this  momentous  truth  must  respect  the  remains  of 
the  dead.  But  this  branch  of  the  subject  more  appropriately 
belongs  to  the  pulpit  than  the  forum.  Permit  me,  therefore, 
to  dismiss  it  with  the  remark,  that  the  eloquent  sermon  of 
the  learned  divine,  Mr.  Weston,  has  developed  all  that  is 
necessary  to  be  said  on  that  subject,  in  its  true  light.  His 
very  text  is  sufficient  without  a sermon,  and  is  peculiarly 
apposite  to  the  present  occasion.  Abraham,  the  venerable 


29 


patriarch,  purchased  land  from  the  children  of  Heth,  for  a 
perpetual  burying-place.  It  received  the  mortal  remains  of 
his  wife  not  only,  but  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob  and  Joseph. 
The  children  of  Heth  were  true  to  their  grant,  observed  it 
faithfully,  and  to  this  day  the  burial-place  is  kept  sacred. 
Our  forefathers  have  also  purchased  a perpetual  burial-place 
in  Trinity  church-yard,  and  it  is  now  sought  to  be  taken 
from  us,  not  by  one  of  ourselves,  but  by  a stranger.  One, 
to  whom  all  the  glorious  associations  of  our  land  are  un- 
known, bids  us  yield  up  the  bones  of  our  fathers  to  aid 
him  as  a legitimate  source  of  profit.  Shall  we  yield  ? No 
sir,  never  ! I appeal  to  you,  then,  not  to  allow  this  street  to 
be  opened.  By  all  the  glorious  memories  of  the  past,  by  all 
your  brilliant  hopes  for  the  future  of  our  country,  do  not 
destroy  the  graves  of  our  revolutionary  patriots — by  every 
consideration  of  public  utility,  let  that  one  green  spot  re- 
main. Let  old  Trinity  stand  intact,  and  teach  the  sublime 
truths  of  our  holy  religion  to  the  two  hundred  thousand  in- 
habitants within  its  precints ; and  may  the  daily  sermons 
preached  there  be  continued,  and  may  her  dead  repose  in 
peace  beneath  the  shadows  of  her  lofty  spire,  till  the  mighty 
archangel  shall  come  down  from  heaven,  and  shall  open  the 
books,  and  shall  set  his  right  foot  upon  the  sea,  and  his  left 
foot  upon  the  land,  and  swear,  by  Him  that  liveth  for  ever 
and  ever,  that  time  shall  be  no  longer. 


30 


[ Note  A.] 

History  of  Trinity  Church,  in  a Petition  from  a descend- 
ant of  a Revolutionary  Officer. 

To  the  Honorable , the  Common  Council  of  the  City  of  New  York : 

The  undersigned  respectfully  joins  in  the  prayer  of  many  of  his  fellow-citizens  to 
your  honorable  body,  asking  for  the  repeal  of  the  ordinance  of  the  late  Common 
Council  relative  to  the  extension  of  Albany  street  through  Trinity  Church-yard. 

In  support  of  his  petition,  the  undersigned  begs  leave  to  present  the  following 
facts  connected  with  our  Revolutionary  history: 

Among  the  earliest  of  the  patriotic  spirits  who  marched  from  their  homes  to  de- 
fend the  city  of  New  York  against  the  armies  of  Great  Britain  in  1776,  were  the 
regiments  contributed  by  the  counties  of  York  and  Lancaster,  in  Pennsylvania. 
They  were  composed  almost  entirely  of  young  men,  the  majority  of  them  of  Ger- 
man descent,  and  animated  by  the  hatred  of  oppression,  and  enthusiasm  in  the  cause 
of  freedom,  which  distinguish  their  race  at  the  present  day. 

Five  regiments  marched  from  the  county  of  York  to  New  Jersey  in  July,  1776, 
and,  of  these,  two  were  detached  to  form  part  of  the  “flying  camp” — a corps  of 
10,000  men,  voted  by  Congress  on  June  3,  1776.  These  two  regiments  were  sta- 
tioned in  the  vicinity  of  the  city  of  New  York.  A portion  of  them  were  killed,  or 
taken  prisoners,  at  the  battle  of  Brooklyn  Heights,  and  the  balance  either  fell  on 
the  field  of  battle  at  the  taking  of  Fort  Washington  on  the  16th  of  November,  1776, 
or  were  captured  on  that  disastrous  occasion  and  marched  down  to  the  city.  Here 
they,  in  common  with  thousands  of  their  fellow  patriots,  suffered  unheard-of  cruel- 
ties in  the  prisons  and  sugar-houses  of  New  York. 

The  regiment  of  Col,  Michael  Swope,  consisting  of  eight  companies,  suffered  se- 
verely at  Fort  Washington.  Death  on  the  field,  or  by  wounds,  or  from  the  horrors 
of  the  prisons,  left  but  few  to  return  to  the  green  hills  of  the  Codorns. 

Ensign  and  Adjutant  Barnitz,  of  this  regiment,  then  but  18  years  old,  fell  at  Fort 
Washington,  with  a musket  ball  in  each  leg.  Being  carried  to  the  city  prisons  with 
the  survivors  of  his  regiment,  he  was  soon  afterwards  removed  to  more  comfortable 
quarters  in  the  old  house  formerly  standing  at  No.  9 Bowery,  in  consequence  of  the 
severity  of  his  wounds,  and  at  the  intercession  of  an  old  family  friend,  Major-Gen- 
eral William  Alexander — Lord  Stirling,  who  was  then  also  a prisoner,  having  been 
shortly  before  captured  on  Long  Island.  Adjutant  Barnitz  here  lay  wTith  unhealed 
wounds  for  fifteen  months;  but  during  that  time  he  was  not  insensible  to  the  still 
greater  sufferings  of  his  companions  in  arms,  and,  with  the  help  of  the  noble-heart- 
ed officer  just  mentioned,  he  was  enabled  to  alleviate  their  captivity,  and  to  care 
for  their  remains  when  dead. 

Being  generally  of  the  Lutheran  faith,  the  grave-yard  of  that  denomination,  ad- 
joining Trinity  Church,  (subsequently  the  site  of  Grace  Church,)  would  have  been 
their  appropriate  place  of  burial,  but  the  church  had  been  destroyed  in  the  confla- 
gration which  occurred  shortly  after  the  occupation  of  the  city  by  the  British  army, 
and  the  burial  ground  was  unprotected. 

A successful  effort  was,  therefore,  made  to  obtain  a place  of  sepulture  in  Trinity 
Church-yard.  Adjutant  Barnitz  was  attached  to  Captain  Christian  Stake’s  compa- 
ny, of  Swope’s  regiment,  composed  of  young  men  of  the  best  families  of  the  town 
of  York.  To  these  more  particularly,  as  being  his  more  immediate  comrades,  such 
care  as  he  could  afford  was  given. 

Of  this  company  the  followif!^  were  buried  in  the  north-western  portion  of  the  7 
grounds,  at  that  time  bordering  on  the  water,  viz:  Sergeant  Peter  Haak,  Sergeant 
John  Hinks,  privates,  Hugh  Dobbins,  Henry  Hoff,  David  Parker,  and  probably  one 
or  two  others.  Captain  McCarter  (of  Col.  Richard  McMaster’s  regiment,  from  the 
same  county,)  died  of  wounds  received  at  Fort  Washington,  and  was  also  buried  at 
Trinity  yard. 

It  may  be  proper  to  state  that  these  facts  are  derived  partly  from  the  History  of 
the  County  of  York,  by. A.  J.  Glossbrenner,  Esq.;  (now  sergeant-at-arms  of  the  Sen- 


31 


ate  of  the  United  States,)  and  partly  from  the  papers  and  reminiscences  of  the  old 
veteran,  who,  in  the  early  days  of  the  writer,  was  wont  to  relate  the  story  of  his 
battles,  and  “to  shoulder  his  staff  and  show  how  fields  were  won.” 

To  the  soldier,  the  last  resting  place  of  his  comrade  is  consecrated  by  the  memory 
of  the  trials,  the  conflicts,  the  sacrifices  and  the  sufferings  which  they  have,  shoul- 
der to  shoulder,  encountered.  He  feels  that  his  honor  rests  by  that  mound  of  earth, 
and  must  guard  it  from  violation  while  life  shall  last.  He  bequeaths  its  care  to  his 
countrymen,  as  a place  of  sacred  memories,  and  never  for  a moment  dreams  that 
future  years  may  bring  spoilers  of  the  tomb,  who  will  forget  their  duty  to  the  blood 
which  cemented  the  foundations  of-the  republic. 

The  Mexican  war  was  prolific  in  instances  where  those  who  fell  were  exhumed 
by  committees  sent  by  their  surviving  comrades,  and  received  a soldier’s  burial  at 
home. 

Permit  me  to  relate  a fact  in  this  connection. 

At  the  call  for  volunteers  for  the  Mexican  war,  William  Eurich  marched  with  his 
company  from  the  town  of  York,  and  joined  the  Pennsylvania  Regiment.  In  the 
battle  which  occurred  before  the  walls  of  Peubla,  Eurich,  with  others  of  his  com- 
pany, having  charged  close  up  to  the  Mexican  lines,  saw  his  friend  and  comrade 
shot  dead  by  his  side.  A superior  force  compelled  them  to  retreat,  but  Eurich 
paused,  and,  shouldering  his  friend’s  body,  was  bearing  it  off  to  a place  of  safe  sepul- 
ture, when  a ball  struck  him,  and  the  brave  fellow  sank  in  death  by  the  body  of  his 
much  loved  friend.  Eurich  was  the  grandson  of  Michael  Eurich,  one  of  the  captur- 
ed soldiers  of  Port  Washington. 

Shall  the  stern  heart  and  rough  nature  of  a soldier  beat  with  so  hallowed  a feel- 
ing, and  shall  the  citizen,  the  merchant,  and  the  legislator  repudiate  it? 

Shall  it  be  said  that  the  city  of  New  York  desecrates  the  graves  of  her  defenders, 
and,  at  the  bidding  ol  the  money-god,  scatters  to  the  winds  the  ashes  of  the  soldiers 
of  liberty  ? 

These  patriot  soldiers,  who  now  repose  in  the  church-yard  of  Trinity,  died  far 
from  friends  and  home.  They  laid  down  their  lives  in  their  youth.  They  left  no 
sons  to  speak  for  them.  Their  silent  dust  cannot  plead  to  you  for  rest. 

It,  therefore,  becomes  my  duty  and  privilege  to  address  you. 

I was  born  where  they  were  born.  Their  friends  were  my  friends,  and  my  early 
days  were  familiar  with  the  green  hills  which  they  last  looked  upon  when  they 
marched  to  defend  your  city. 

My  earnest  petition  to  the  Common  Council  of  the  city  of  New  York  is,  that  the 
remains  oT  these  martyrs  of  our  Independence  may  be  left  in  peace  in  the  graves 
where  their  comrades  laid  them. 


Respectfully, 

No.  1 61  Broadway,  Peb.  9,  1854. 


J.  Barnitz  Bacon. 


:o: 

[Note  B.] 

DESECRATION  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH- YARD. 

Copy  of  a Letter  from  His  Honor  the  Recorder  to  Alderman  Francis. 

Dated,  New  York,  May  28,  1853. 

Dear  Sir  : — I did  not  receive  your  note  mentioning  a meeting  of  the  Committee 
of  your  Board,  in  relation  to  Trinity  church-yard,  until  after  the  time  designated.  It 
is  painful  to  me  to  discover  that  renewed  efforts  are  making  to  desecrate  that  holy 
ground ; for  there  lie  multitudes  of  the  dead,  including  relatives,  connexions,  friends 
and  ancestors  of  almost  every  family  of  long  standing  in  our  city,  including,  too,  many 
of  those  who  died  in  that  struggle,  the  success  of  which  established  those  mighty 
principles  and  institutions  of  human  liberty  from  which  flow  the  happiness,  the  bless- 
ings and  prosperity  of  this  country  and  its  people. 


32 


I have  not  examined  the  papers  connected  with  the  present  application,  but  should 
like  to  do  so  the  moment  I can  obtain  sufficient  time  from  my  other  duties.  I under- 
stand that  it  is  the  same,  and,  with  some  few  exceptions,  by  the  same  leading  per- 
sons who  took  an  active  part  in  the  applications  made  in  1846  and  1847,  which,  I 
believe,  in  effect,  was  to  make  a street  in  continuation  of  Pine  street  opposite  to 
it,  through  Trinity  church-yard — the  north  part  58  feet  1 1 inches  wide  on  Broadway, 
and  55  feet  8 inches  on  Trinity-place,  and  to  be  continued  to  Greenwich  street,  op- 
posite Albany  street,  50  feet  wide.  The  street  proposed,  on  its  northerly  side  on 
Broadway,  would  approach  to  within  40  feet  of  Thames  street  which  is  20  feet  1 
inch  wide  on  Broadway,  and  21  feet  2 inches  on  Greenwich  street,  and,  by  a diagonal 
line,  would  be  within  58  feet  8 inches  of  Thames  street  at  Greenwich  street. 

The  ground,  as  I understand,  has  been  employed  as  a cemetery  since  1676 — the 
north  part  for  all  denominations — confirmed  by  deed  from  the  city  in  1703.  Origi- 
nally, that  part  was  a gully  about  *16  feet  deep;  and  successive  surfaces  from  the 
original  one,  by  successive  filling  to  the  present  surface,  have  been  used  for  inter- 
ments, until,  in  truth,  the  land  chiefly  for  the  whole  depth  is  now  composed  of 
human  ashes. 

To  accomplish  the  desire  of  the  applicants  it  would  be  necessary  to  remove  the 
remains  of  a vast  number  of  persons. 

I see  no  advantage  in  recapitulating  the  arguments  used  on  the  former  occasions 
in  this  letter,  but  solicit  you  to  have  the  kindness  to  read  the  message  or  veto  of 
Mr.  Havemeyer,  the  Mayor  in  1846,  made  on  the  lltli  of  May  of  that  year,  and  re- 
ceived in  the  Board  of  Assistants,  and  the  report  of  the  Comrdittee  of  the  same 
Board,  made  on  the  22d  of  March,  1847.  (Doc.  33  of  that  year.) 

The  truth  of  the  views  of  that  Committee  we  are  now,  I think,  in  some  respects  real- 
izing. The  sale  of  the  grave-yards  and  churches  and  removal  of  the  dead  in  various 
parts  of  the  city,  and  the  closing  up  of  those  green  and  venerated  spots  by  covering 
them  with  buildings  have  deprived  us,  to  a large  extent,  of  what  may  be  regarded 
as  necessary  openings  for  ventilation ; nay,  more,  have  removed  so  much  of  the 
moral  influence  which  religious  worship  carries  with  it,  that  vice  and  crime  in  the 
lower  wards  of  the  city  have  been  deprived  of  one  of  their  material  preventives. 
The  idea,  no  doubt,  has  its  opponents,  but  I think  examination  will  prove  its  truth. 

Besides,  I am  interested  in  the  measure,  because  I have  twenty-two  relatives  and 
connections  lying  in  that  portion  of  the  yard.  Some  of  them  were  interred  previous 
to  and  some  since  the  revolution.  A headstone  of  one  who  died  in  1762  is  yet  ex- 
tant. 

We  are  a family  of  Huguenots.  Our  ancestors,  to  escape  persecution  and  oppres- 
sion, fled  from  comfort  and  good  condition  to  this  country — when  here  it  was  almost 
a wilderness — and  met  loneliness  and  poverty.  They  did  this  for  conscience’s  sake ; 
and,  to  worship  the  Deity,  according  to  their  tenets,  would  walk  on  Saturday  night 
from  New  Rochelle  to  this  city  to  their  church,  and  return  on  Monday  morning. 

The  French  church  in  Pine  street,  to  which  they  once  went,  and  its  grave-yard, 
have,  as  well  as  others,  been  sold  for  money,  and  the  remains  of  the  congregation 
there  interred,  been  taken  up  and  carried  away. 

Generations  of  this  family  lie  in  Trinity  church-yard,  and  it  is  now  impracticable 
to  separate  their  ashes  from  the  earth  which  surrounds  them.  Such  is  the  case  with 
thousands  of  others. 

One  of  the  family  is  Peter  V.  Tilyou,  who  died  in  1846,  at  the  age  of  91 — the  in- 
dividual of  the  body-guard  of  Washington,  who,  it  is  said,  on  the  entrance  of  the 
American  army  into  this  city,  at  the  close  of  the  war,  took  down  the  British  and  run 
up  the  American  colors,  at  the  spot  where  is  now  the  corner  of  Grand  street  and  the 
Bowery.  He,  when  he  heard  of  the  application  in  1846,  before  his  death,  to  open 
the  street  through  the  cemetery,  remonstrated  against  the  act  in  the  newspapers  of 
the  day,  and  exclaimed  that  when  he  and  his  comrades  were  fighting  the  battles  of 
their  country,  he  little  thought  he  would  ever  live  to  see  their  bones  so  scattered, 
and  that  he  had  a father,  a mother,  and  wife,  and  ten  brothers  and  sisters,  lying 
there. 

* The  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Board  of  Assistant  Aldermen  says  “30  feet.”  The  Re- 
corder, probably,  takes  the  average  depth. 


33 


i 


The  disturbance  of  the  dead  is  a revolting  act,  only  excusable  by  extreme  neces- 
sity. The  instincts  of  nature  and  the  behests  of  the  Almighty  forbid  it.  The  abode 
of  the  dead  is  consecrated — is  sacrod  in  the  eye  of  all  nations,  and  linked,  as  this 
home  of  a mighty  nation  of  the  past  is,  by  tradition,  relationship  and  recollection,  to 
nearly  all  the  older  families  of  this  city — beautiful,  though  solemn  in  its  appearance 
and  inspirations — can  it  be,  that  any  considerations  short  of  vital  necessity  can  war- 
rant its  being  broken  into  ? 

But  enough ; excuse  these  remarks : they  are  involuntarily  drawn  from  me  on 
thinking  over  the  matter.  If  you  will  inform  me  when  you  shall  have  your  next 
meeting,  I will  endeavor,  though  I may  not  be  able,  to  be  there.  Should  I not,  I 
pray  you  take  the  grounds  of  my  opposition  into  consideration.  Yery  respectfully 
yours,  &c.  F.  R.  TILLOU. 

Alderman  Francis. 


:o: 

[Note  G] 

TRINITY  CHURCH- YARD. 

Report  of  the  Special  Committee  in  the  Board  of  Assistant  Aldermen,  March , 1841,  to 
whom  was  referred  the  resolution  in  relation  to  opening  an  extension  of  Albany  street 
to  Broadway , through  Trinity  Church-  Yard,  adverse  to  the  same : 

The  Special  Committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  resolution  in  regard  to  the  ex- 
tension of  Albany  street  to  Broadway,  through  Trinity  Church-Yard,  respectfully 
report,  that  they  have  examined  the  matter  in  all  its  various  bearings,  and  in  order 
to  obtain  the  opinion  of  those  interested  therein,  the  applicants  and  remonstrants, 
as  well  as  the  people  at  large,  many  of  the  latter  of  whom  regard  the  ground 
through  which  it  is  intended  the  street  shall  be  opened,  as  sacred,  your  Committee 
have  held  public  meetings,  and  given  audience  to  all  who  might  come  forward  to 
speak  in  favor  of,  or  in  opposition  to  the  measure.  The  subject  has  been  ably  and 
thoroughly  discussed  at  such  meetings,  and  your  Committee  have  derived  great 
information  from  the  different  discussions  held  before  them,  and  have  maturely  con- 
sidered all  the  arguments  advanced  on  both  sides.  Your  Committee  have  also  ex- 
amined all  the  documents  which  have  been  referred  to,  or  placed  before  them — 
have  personally  inspected  the  ground  through  which  the  proposed  opening  or  ex- 
tension would  pass,  and  have  made  all  such  other  examination,  inquiry  and  research, 
as  appeared  to  be  material  or  useful  to  the  end  above  mentioned. 

The  street  proposed  commences  on  Broadway,  partly  in  a line  with  Pine  street, 
forty  feet  south  of  Thames  street, — is  fifty-eight  feet  eleven  inches  wide  on  Broad- 
way, and  is  continued  until  it  strikes  Trinity  Place,  forty-six  feet  one  inch  south  of 
Thames  street,  where  it  becomes  gradually  diminished  in  width  to  fifty-three  feet 
eight  inches.'  It  is  then  continued, — commencing  on  the  west  side  of  Trinity  Place, 
fifty -three  feet  four  inches  south  of  Thames  street,  and  is  there  fifty  feet  in  width, 
and  is  continued  to  Greenwich  street,  which  it  strikes  partly  in  a line  with  Albany 
street,  fifty-seven  feet  eight  inches  south  of  Thames  street,  where  the  width  is  dim- 
inished to  forty-nino  feet  ten  inches.  The  block  from  Broadway  to  Trinity  Place  is 
in  length  about  two-hundred  and  fifty-six  feet,  and  the  block  from  Trinity  Place  to 
Greenwich  street  about  two  hundred  and  thirty-five  feet. 

The  Petitioners  in  this  matter  complain  that  they  have  no  thoroughfare  from  the 
north  to  the  east  river,  and  that  for  the  want  of  one  they  suffer  much  in  the  winter 
time,  and  are  obliged,  on  account  of  the  steepness  of  ascent  in  Rector  and  Thames 
streets,  and  the  narrowness  of  the  latter,  to  cart  their  goods  through  Marketfield 
street  or  Battery  Place  to  Broadway,  in  order  to  reach  the  east  side  of  the  City; 
but  it  appears  strange  to  your  Committee  that  the  merchants  and  others  doing  busi- 
ness on  the  east  side  of  Broadway,  and  who  carry  on  the  chief  part  of  the  business 
which  is  done  below  Liberty  street,  make  no  demand  whatever  for  such  an  opening ! 
Many  of  our  European  Packet  Ships  have  their  berths  in  the  North  river,  above 

5 


84 


below,  and  about  the  dock  at  the  foot  of  Albany  street,  in  which  ships,  large  car- 
goes of  goods  are  imported  by  merchants  in  Pine,  Wall,  Cedar,  Water,  Front,  Pearl, 
South,  Broad,  and  Liberty  streets;  and  many  transient  ships  also  land  their  cargoes 
in  the  region  afore-mentioned : but  your  /Committee  have  not  heard  of  any  person 
doing  business  as  an  importer  on  the  east  side  of  Broadway,  who  desires  or  is  in 
favor  of  the  proposed  extension  of  Albany  street.  Moreover  there  are  more  streets 
running  from  Broadway  to  the  North  river  than  to  the  East  river  already:  for  in- 
stance, on  the  east  side  there  are  Maiden  Lane,  Wall,  Pine,  and  Liberty  streets; 
and  on  the  west  within  the  space  there  are  Rector,  Thames,  Cedar,  Liberty,  and 
Courtlandt  streets.  From  which  it  appears  there  are  five  openings  from  Broadway 
to  the  North  river,  and  only  four  from  that  great  thoroughfare  to  the  East  river; 
and  yet  we  heir  no  complaint  from  those  engaged  in  business  on  the  east  side  about 
the  want  of  a passage  from  one  river  to  the  other,  though  they  are  in  number  as 
twenty  to  one  compared  with  those  on  the  West  side.  The  actual  necessity,  there- 
fore, of  extending  Albany  street  in  the  manner  proposed,  is  a matter  of  doubt;  and 
to  run  it  through  the  time-honored  cemetry  which  stands  as  a barrier  to  the  com- 
pletion of  the  project,  the  Petitioners  must  prove  that  the  necessity  is  extreme — 
that  the  contemplated  opening  would  be  a great  public  benefit,  and  that  they  are 
actuated  by  no  other  motive  than  the  promotion  of  the  public  good. 

That  section  of  Trinity  Church-yard  through  which  the  contemplated  street  must 
pass,  is  the  most  ancient  cemetery  in  this  City,  and  probably  in  this  country.  It 
was  established  by  the  Dutch  on  their  first  settlement,  and  as  a burial-ground  it  is 
nearly  a century  older  than  the  other  sections  of  the  yard.  It  was  originally  a valley 
about  thirty  feet  lower  at  its  extreme  depth  than  the  present  surface,  and  has  under- 
gone successive  fillings,  as  the  density  of  interments  rendered  it  necessary,  to  raise 
the  land  until  it  reached  the  present  surface;  so  that  the  earth  now,  to  a depth  of 
several  feet  below  the  original , and  thence  to  the  present  time  of  interment , is  in , truth 
filled  with  human  remains , or  rather  composed  of  human  ashes.  The  bodies  buried 
there  were  those  of  many  thousand  persons  of  several  generations,  and  of  all  ages, 
sects,  and  conditions,  including  a large  number  of  the  officers  and  soldiers  of  the  revo- 
lutionary war , who  died  whilst  in  British  captivity , and  almost  every  old  family  that 
is  or  ever  was  in  this  city  has  friends,  relatives,  or  connexions  lying  there. 

Your  Committee  are  of  the  opinion  that  this  burih'l-place  is  peculiarly  entitled  to 
the  protection  of  our  authorities,  and  they  cannot  but  think  that  if  it  be  invaded  and 
desecrated,  not  another  cemetery  in  the  city  is  safe  from  the  spade  of  the  innovator. 
Its  claims  to  respect  are  as  follows: 

First.  For  its  antiquity : this  portion  of  it  being  nearly  a century  older  than 
Trinity  Church  itself,  and  the  burial-place  of  the  city  when  first  founded  by  the 
Dutch,  and  laid  out  by  them  just  beyond  the  City  Wall. 

Second.  It  has  always  been  emphatically  the  City  burying-ground,  without  refer- 
ence to  religious  sect  or  condition,  and  was  deeded  by  the  Common  Council  of  the 
city  to  Trinity  Church,  April  22d,  1703,  conditioned  that  it  should  continue  to  be 
used  forever,  as  a general  burying-ground,  (the  price  of  interment  being  fixed  at  five 
shillings  for  an  adult,  and  two  shillings  and  sixpence  lor  a child  under  twelve  years 
of  age,  shows  it  to  be  the  poor  man’s  resting-place,)  and  Trinity  Church  bound  to 
Keep  it  in  good  fence,  repair  and  condition.  In  fact  it  belongs  to  the  people  gener- 
ally of  the  city,  the  church  aforesaid  being  merely  its  guardian,  and  absolutely  and 
inevitably  bound  in  conscience  to  protect  it. 

Third.  The  immense  number  of  interments,  particularly  in  that  part  of  the  city 
now  sought  to  be  turned  into  a highway,  which  alone  is  estimated  to  contain  the 
remains  of  between  thirty  and  forty  thousand  human  beings;  embracing,  as  afore- 
said, many  of  our  most  distinguished  citizens  and  patriots  of  other  days. 

Fourth.  The  parties  who  were  interred  in  this  spot : — During  the  time  this  city  was 
in  possession  of  the  British  troops , the  American  prisoners  who  perished  by  thousands 
were  all  thrown  in  trenches  into  this  very  ground , and  as  soon  as  the  city  was  evacuated , 
were , by  Trinity  Church , given  in  that  place  a decent  sepulture , where - tomb-stone  and 
tablet  still  mark  the  spot  in  which  many  a Revolutionary  officer  lies  buried.  Your 
Committee,  therefore,  feel  assured  that  hardly  an  American  citizen  can  be  found  who 
would  hesitate  a moment  to  declare  that  it  must  be  an  urgent , nay  a dire  necessity , that 


* 


35 


would  justify  the  scattering  of  the  ashes  of  those  so  deservedly  dear  to  us,  who  are  now 
enjoying  the  liberty  and  happiness,  which  they  laid  down  their  lives  to  secure. 

Fifth.  When  the  Common  Council  on  the  22nd  of  April,  1703,  as  before  mention- 
ed, conveyed  this  piece  of  land  to  Trinity  Church,  describing  it  then  as  an  ancient 
burial  place  of  the  city,  and  conditioning  that  it  should  continue  to  be  so  used  for 
that  purpose  to  the  end  of  time,  did  they  not  guarantee  under  the  solemnity  of  the 
city  seal,  to  all  who  were  subsequently  interred  there,  that  they  should  there  con- 
tinue to  repose  for  ever  ? A question  here  arises,  as  to  whether  or  not  the  Common 
Council  can,  by  their  own  act,  legally  take  away  those  rights  which  they  have  so 
solemnly  declared  should  never  be  infringed,  and  on  the  faith  of  which  declaration 
and  assurance  so  many  paid  for  that  ground  in  which  they  now  repose  in  the  deep 
sleep  of  death  ; but  it  is  a question  which  requires  not  much  ingenuity  nor  the  aid 
of  counsel  to  answer  in  a manner  satisfactory  to  all  who  are  not  pecuniarily  inter- 
ested in  the  extension  of  Albany  street.  Apart  from  “ the  question”  however,  do 
we  not  take  great  pride  in  our  magnificent  city,  and  in  the  integrity  op  her  seal, 
which  has  never  yet  been  violated  ? And  shall  we  not  continue  to  preserve  it  as 
•pure  and  unsullied  as  the  ermine  of  Justice  itself?  As  servants  of  the  people,  it  is 
our  bounden  duty,  to  keep  the  faith  of  the  city  inviolate,  and  that  alone  should 
prompt  us  to  deny  the  prayer  of  the  petitioners;  but  your  Committee  have  other 
reasons  to  offer  why  their  prayer  should  not  be  granted. 

It  appears  that  the  application  now-under  consideration  is  supported  by  one 
hundred  and  twenty-three  persons;  of  whom  fifty-three  are  represented  as  owners 
of  property  interested,  and  the  remainder  as  lessees,  packet-owners,  and  persons 
who  do  not  define  the  position  and  capacity  in  whfch  they  apply : That  is  opposed 
by  upwards  of  sixteen  hundred  persons;  that  is  to  say  one  hundred  and  thirty,  in- 
cluding Trinity  Church  as  owners  of  the  property  in  interest,  and  the  residue  as  re- 
latives of  the  dead : That  such  of  the  applicants  as  appear  to  be  owners , represent 
altogether,  about,  but  not  exceeding,  seventy-one  lots ; that  such  of  the  opposers, 
including  Trinity  Church,  as  appear  to  be  owners , represent  altogether,  about,  but 
not  exceeding,  twenty-nine  acres ; or,  at  twelve  lots  per  acre,  three  hundred  and 
forty-eight  lots;  and,  at  sixteen  lots  per  acre,  (which  is  the  correct  estimate,  as  the 
land  is  exclusive  of  streets,)  four  hundred  and  sixty-four' lots:  in  addition  to  which 
are  the  large  numbers  of  the  dead  lying  there,  whose  interest  is  not  only  repre- 
sented by  the  church  aforesaid,  but  by  the  immense  number  of  their  relatives  and 
friends. 

Your  committee,  although  it  is.  rather  beyond  their  duty,  seeing  the  opening  or 
extension  of  Albany  street  to  Broadway  through  Trinity  Church-yard,  is  the  sub- 
ject of  their  labors,  begs  leave  respectfully  to  suggest  that  the  widening  of  Thames 
street  from  Broadway  to  Greenwich  street  would  make  a much  better  thoroughfare 
than  the  one  desired  by  the  applicants,  inasmuch  as  the  street,  proposed  by  them, 
ddes  not  average  fifty  feet  in  width  from  Trinity  Place  to  Greenwich  street,  where- 
as the  widening  of  Thames  street  would  give  a width  on  Broadway  of  sixty  feet 
one  inch,  and  on  Greenwich  street,  gradually  widening  from  Broadway  down,  seven- 
ty-eight feet  ten  inches.  This  wohM  not  only  make  a handsome  street,  but  would  ob- 
viate the  necessity,  and  quell  the  desire  of  having  another  cut  through  and  running 
parallel  with  it  only  forty  feet  distant.  The  petitioners  allege  that  this  would  be  too 
expensive ;'  but  your  committee  are  of  the  opinion,  that  if  it  he  absolutely  necessary 
for  the  public  good  that  a new  street  be  opened  in  that  quarter , those  interested  would 
rather  pay  double  the  amount  Of  their  own  estimates,  than  disturb  the  ashes  of  the 
patriotic  dead  entombed  in  Trinity  Church-yard.  The  widening  of  Thames  street 
would,  in  the  opinion  of  your  committee,  answer  a better  purpose  than  the  exten- 
sion of  Albany  street,  inasmuch  as  it  would  be  a great  deal  wider,  and,  of  course, 
much  easier  of  ascent  from  Greenwich  street  to  Broadway.  Your  committee  might 
also  suggest  the  opening  and  extension  of  Albany  street  to  Trinity  Place,  and  the 
widening  of  Thames  street  between  Broadway  and  Trinity  Place  by  the  removal  of 
those  buildings  on  Thames  street  opposite  the  City  Hotel;  by  which  means  Albany 
street  could  be  brought  within  the  gorge  of  an  inlet  to  Broadway,  and  the  necessi- 
ty of  cutting  through  the  chambers  of  the  dead  be  entirely  obviated.  However,  as 


36 


your  committee  are  not  empowered  to  report  in  more  than  one  case,  it  is  proper 
that  they  confine  themselves  to  their  legitimate  duty. 

Your  committee  are  of  the  opinien  that  the  prayer  of  the  petitioners  ought  not  to 
be  granted:  1.  Because  it  is  manifest  that  a large  majority  in  amount  of  those  who 
will  be  interested  by  assessment  for  benefit  and  award  for  injury  are  opposed  to  it. 
By  the  law  of  1839,*  it  is  in  substance  declared,  that  on  the  application  to  the  Su- 
preme Court  to  confirm  the  report  of  commissioners  of  estimate  and  assessment  be- 
ing made,  in  case  such  majority  shall  appear  and  object  to  further  proceedings,  the 
proceedings  shall  be  discontinued — and  your  committee  have  no  doubt  that  the  Com- 
mon Council,  in  considering  this  application,  are  bound  to  be  governed  by  the  same 
rule ; for  otherwise  they  would  wilfully  subject  parties  to  certain  though  useless  and 
unjust  expense  and  injury. 

2.  Because  the  contemplated  street  would  be  a deformed  one  of  different  widths, 
while  Thames  street,  widened  as  herein  before  recommended,  will  expand  gradually 
and  by  regular  lines  on  both  sides  to  Greenwich  st.,  where  its  width  should  be  the 
greatest,  as  it  will  be,  and  would  present  an  elegant  improvement. 

3.  Because  the  law  of  the  lltli  of  April,  1842, f in  effect,  declares  the  act  by  a, 
church  or  religious  corporation  or  its  officers,  of  removing  any  human  body  or  re- 
mains from  any  burying-ground,  for  the  interment  of  which  compensation  shall  have 
been  received,  with  intent  to  convert  the  ground  to  any  other  purpose , without  the  con- 
sent in  writing  of  three-fourths  of  the  congregation  or  society , a misdemeanor , and  sub- 
jects the  offender  to  fine  and  imprisonment.  The  spirit  of  these  laws  cannot  be  mis- 
taken, and  none  will  doubt,  who  have  examined  the  subject,  that  it  is  in  accordance 
with  the  feelings  and  sentiments  of  the  whole  community,  and  of  the  whole  nation  ; 
and  the  Common  Council  cannot  give  their  official  sanction  to  an  act  so  broadly  a 
violation  of  the  statutes  and  of  the  rights  and  feelings  of  the  community,  because  it 
would  be  aiding  men  to  commit,  in  the  name  of  the  public,  an  act  which  the  -public 
have,  by  its  laws,  declared  t©  be  Criminal.  The  demoralizing  effect  of  these  desecra- 
tions is  plainly  disclosed  in  the  bold  assertions  made  before  your  Committee  during  the 
discussion  of  the  subject,  by  those  in  favor  of  the  proposed  extension,  that  the  feeling 
against  the  breaking  up  and  appropriating  of  Cemeteries  to  secular  purposes,  is  “ an 
obsolete  idea;”  and  your  Committee  believe  that  a compliance  with  the  application 
now  under  consideration,  will,  upon  the  same  principle  of  reason,  give  a firm  ratifi- 
cation to  the  revolting  sentiment.  As  conservators  of  the  public  morals,  the  Com- 
mon Council  are  bound  to  refuse  their  sanction  to  such  a monstrous  doctrine. 

4.  Because  the  extension  applied  for  is  against  public  policy;  inasmuch  as  it 
would  contract  the  open  space  which  Trinity  Church-yard  affords,  now  not  more 
than  sufficient  for  the  necessary  ventilation  of  that  part  of  the  city.  Besides  that 
spot,  the  Bowling  Green  and  the  Battery  are  the  only  places  of  the  kind  in  the  First 
"Ward.  How  necessary,  then,  to  the  public  health  it  is  to  preserve  Trinity  Church- 
yard entire,  and  how  injurious  to  contract  or  diminish  it!  That  ground  is  suscepti- 
ble of  high  and  exquisite  embellishment  as  an  elegant  ornarflent.  Linked  with  so 
many  endearing  associations,  so  many  interesting  memorials,  rich  in  its  evergreens 
of  memory  as  well  as  of  fact  and  reality,  attached  to  the  magnificent  Cathedral  that 
stands  within  it,  what  can  be  more  healthful  or  beautiful.  * 

Your  Committee  consider  that  sound  policy  and  regard  for  the  public  health  for- 
bid that  the  proposed  opening  should  be  made;  and  that  the  ultimate  failure  of  the 
several  previous  applications  to  former  Common  Councils  proves  that  the  des  gn  of 
the  applicants  is  radically  objectionable.  Your  Committee  will  close  their  report 
by  recommending  for  adoption  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved , That  it  is  inexpedient,  improper,  and  unnecessary  to  extend  Albany 
street  to  Broadway  through  Trinity  Church-yard,  or  that  any  street  whatever  should 
be  opened  through  or  over  that  ground ; and  that  the  prayer  of  the  Petitioners  be, 
and  is  hereby  denied. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted.  • CHARLES  WEBB, 

New  York,  184*7.  ISAAC  B.  SMITH. 

* Laws  of  the  State  of  New- York,  page  182,  chap.  209. 

tLaws  of  the  State  of  New  York,  page  259,  Chap.  215. 


% 


37 


I cannot  adopt  all  the  reasoning  of  the  foregoing  report,  but  from  the  evidence 
presented  to  me  that  the  opening  of  Thames  street  would  afford  the  necessary  facili- 
ties to  the  public,  I concur  in  the  resolution  that  it  is  inexpedient  to  open  Albany 
strict 

THOMAS  McELRATH, 
MOSES  W.  S.  JACKSON, 

Committee. 


38 


APPLICATION 


FOR  A 


MONUMENT  IN  TRINITY  CHURCH- YARD. 

At  a Meeting  of  Citizens  held  at  the  City  Hall  of  the  City  of  New  York,  on  the 
8th  of  June,  1852,  the  following  Preamble  and  Resolutions  were  adopted: 

Whereas,  the  remains  of  a large  number  of  those  heroic  men  who  sacrificed  their 
lives  in  achieving  the  Independence  of  these  United  States,  many  of  whom  died 
whilst  in  captivity  in  the  old  Sugar-house,  are  interred  in  Trinity  church-yard  in 
this  City,  and,  from  the  uniform  attention  and  respect  to  the  dead  which  Trinity 
Church  has  observed,  it  is  believed  that,  on  suggestion,  it  will  cheerfully  erect  a 
suitable  Monument  to  their  memory,  therefore — 

Resolved , That  the  erection  of  a becoming  Monument,  with  appropriate  inscrip- 
tions, to  the  memory  of  those  great  and  good  men,  by  the  Church,  will  be  an  act 
gratifying,  not  only  to  the  attendants  of  this  meeting,  but  to  every  American  citizen. 

Resolved , That  the  proceedings  of  this  Meeting  be  communicated  to  the  Yestry 
of  Trinity  Church. 

A.  C.  KINGSLAND,  President. 

CHAS.  W.  SANDFORD,  Vice-President. 

R.  T.  COMPTON,  > s . . 

JONA.'  TROTTERS,  J *ecretanes- 


We  fully  concur  in  the  above. 


Wm.  Hatt, 

F.  A.  Tallmadge, 

John  McKeon, 

Geo.  P.  Morris, 

Aaron  Platt, 

N.  Bowditch  Blunt, 

Wm.  Y.  Brady, 

James  M.  Bard, 

Robt.  H.  Morris, 

A.  A.  Denman, 

C.  W.  Lawrence, 

S.  L.  H.  Ward, 

Anthony  Lamb, 

A.  L.  Alvord, 

W.  F.  Havemeyer, 

Jacob  F.  Oakley, 

S.  B.  McGown, 

Wesley  Smith, 

Pat.’k  Breaden, 

Wm.  J.  Brisley, 

C.  H.  Ring, 

Danl.  F.  Tiemann, 

J.  W.  Brown, 

Abraham  Moore, 

Thos.  J.  Barr, 

H.  M.  Wells, 

William  H.  Cornell, 

Wm.  M.  Tweed, 

Joseph  R.  Taylor, 

John  Doherty, 

Oscar  W.  Sturtevant, 

John  Boyce, 

D.  Banks, 

C.  Francis, 

A.  H.  Mickle, 

F.  R.  Terron, 

Campbell  P.  White. 

39 


i 


REPORT  OP  THE  COMMITTEE 


Proposed  Monument  to  the  Heroes  of  the  Revolution. 

The  Committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  annexed  Resolutions  adopted  at  a 
Meeting  of  Citizens,  at  which  his  Honor  the  Mayor  presided,  and  the  President  of 
the  Board  of  Aldermen  acted  as  Secretary,  on  the  subject  of  the  erection  of  a Mon- 
ument by  the  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  to  the  memory  of  the  Officers  and 
Soldiers  of  the  Revolutionary  War,  who  died  in  captivity  in  this  City  “and  are 
interred  in  Trinity  Church-yard,” 

Respectfully  Report, 

That,  in  addition  to  the  Officers  of  the  Meeting,  the  Resolutions  are  subscribed  by, 
and  concurred  in  by  six  of  the  former  Mayors  of  the  City,  the  Recorder,  and  two 
ex- Recorders,  the  President  and  Members  of  both  Boards  of  the  Common  Council, 
together  with  several  of  our  oldest  and  most  respected  Citizens.  A communication 
thus  made  will  at  all  times  command  the  respectful  consideration  of  the  Yestry  of 
Trinity  Church.  Prom  the  best  information  the  Committee  have  been  able  to  pro- 
cure, the  following  statement,  from  the  Recorder  of  the  City,  is  probably  the  most 
correct : 

“ In  relation  to  the  circumstances  connected  with  the  events  of  which  you  inquire 
in  your  note  to  me,  I can  of  my  own  knowledge  only,  so  far  as  applies  to  the  Revo- 
lutionary Patriots  w’ho  died  in  British  captivity,  and  whose  remains  lie  In  Trinity 
Church-yard,  state,  what  has  been  handed  down  by  my  ancestors  and  others  of  that 
generation,  by  tradition  and  what  is  known  as  part  of  the  history  of  that  period. 
By  this,  I believe  is  established  the  fact,  that  large  numbers  of  those  who  are  in- 
terred in  the  north  section  of  Trinity  Church-yard,  died  in  the  building  afterwards, 
as  well  as  before,  known  as  the  ‘ Sugar  House,’  in  Liberty  Street.  The  remains 
of  many  others  of  the  brave  men  who  were  in  that  great  struggle  lie  also  there. 
It  is  said  that  a portion  of  the  yard  where  the  most  of  those  brave  men  lie,  was 
below  the  present  surface,  some  sixteen  feet,  about,  at,  or  on  a line  with  or  oppo- 
site Pine  street;  and,  by  subsequent  successive  fillings  as  the  ground  became  full  of 
human  remains,  it  has  reached  its  present  height ; thqt,  in  fact,  in  that  part  of  the 
yard,  for  more  than  sixteen  feet,  the  ground  is  composed  of  human  remains, 
quite  decomposed  nearly  all  to  dust.  Ground,  so  peculiarly  consecrated, — ground 
thus  formed  of  all  that  is  of  past  generations,  including  not  only  those  who,  in  the 
ordinary  path  of  life’s  chequered  scene,  had  their  votaries  for  their  virtues,  but  those 
also  distinguished,  and  to  be  distinguished  justly,  in  all  ages,  for  their  devotion  to 
their  country,  and  their  sacrifices,  even  unto  death,  to  secure  its  present  blessings, — 
surely  is,  emphatically,  holy ; and  the  many  memories  associated  with  it  truly  sacred. 
The  memento  proposed  is  particularly  appropriate. 

Prom  this  statement,  it  may  be  considered  that  a portion  of  the  burying  ground  of 
Trinity  Church,  on  or  near  to  the  line  opposite  to  Pine  street,  contains  the  remains 
of  a large  number  of  the  Revolutionary  Patriots,  who  died  in  captivity  in  the  prisons 
of  this  City  during  the  War  of  the  Revolution.  Some,  as  the  Committee  are  informed, 


40 


■were  buried  elsewhere:  the  present  site  of  Stuart’s  marble  store  haying  been,  at  that 
time,  a cemetery  principally  for  blacks,  in  which  were  also  interred  a portion  of  the 
Heroes  of  the  Revolution.  Although  nearly  three-fourths  of  a century  has  elapsed 
since  the  martyrdom  of  these  men  in  the  cause  of  human  freedom,  strange  as  it  may 
seem,  there  is  no  authentic  record  of  their  death,  and  nothing  to  designate  their  se- 
pulchre. 

The  Committee  do  not  stop  to  inquire  whose  especial  duty  it  may  be  to  repair,  at 
this  late  day,  this  seeming  injustice.  The  Corporation  of  Trinity  Church,  in  whose 
keeping  many  of  these  sacred  relics  are  deposited,  are  applied  to,  in  an  imposing  man- 
ner, to  erect  a monument  to  their  memory,  and  the  Committee  recommend  a favor- 
able response  to  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolution : — 

Resolved , That  a suitable  monument  be  erected,  by  this  Corporation,  in  memory 
of  the  Officers  and  Soldiers  of  the  Revolution,  who  died  in  British  captivity  in  the 
City  of  New  York,  many  of  whom  are  buried  in  the  North  part  of  Trinity  Church- 
yard, opposite  to  Pine  street,  and  that  Dollars  be  appropriated  therefor, 

and  that  a Committee  be  authorized  to  procure  plans  and  estimates  to  be  submitted 
to  the  Yestry. 

JOHN  R.  LIVINGSTON, 
ROBERT  HYSLOP, 
alex.  l.  McDonald. 

New  York,  Nov.  6,  1852. 


